UC-NRLF 


2m 


THE 

HUMANE 

IDEA 


FRANCIS 

H. 

ROWLEY 


lf> 

^ 
-u> 

w> 


THE   HUMANE   IDEA 


THE 

HUMANE    IDEA 


A  BRIEF  HISTORY  OP  MAN'S  ATTITUDE 
TOWARD  THE  OTHER  ANIMALS,  AND 
OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE 
HUMANE  SPIRIT  INTO  ORGAN- 
IZED SOCIETIES 


BY 

FRANCIS  H.  ROWLEY 

1 1 

PRESIDENT    OP   THE   MASSACHUSETTS   SOCIETY   FOB   THE 
PREVENTION   OF   CRUELTY   TO   ANIMALS 

AND   OF   THE 
AMERICAN   HUMANE   EDUCATION   SOCIETY 


Are  not  two  sparrows  sold  for 
a  farthing  ?  and  not  one  of 
them  shall  fall  on  the  ground 
without  your  Father. — JESUS 


BOSTON 

AMERICAN  HUMANE  EDUCATION  SOCIETY 
1912 


COPYRIGHT,     1912,    BY 
AMERICAN    HUMANE    EDUCATION    SOCIETY 


THE*  PLIMPTON  •PRESS 

[W  D-O] 
NORWOOD.  MASS-U'S'A 


IP   THIS    LITTLE    VOLUME   WERE    WORTHY    A    PLACE    BESIDE 

THEIR    FIDELITY    AND     DEVOTION,     IT    WOULD     BE 

DEDICATED  TO  TWO  HORSES  AND  TWO  DOGS  TO 

WHOSE    COMPANIONSHIP   AND    INFLUENCE 

THE  AUTHOR  OWES  MORE  THAN  THE 

STRANGER   WOULD    BELIEVE 


257889 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

THE  PURPOSE ix 

THE  HUMANE  IDEA 1 

PRIMITIVE  MAN 3 

THE  HEBREW 5 

THE  GREEK 7 

THE  ROMAN 14 

OTHER  LANDS 20 

EARLY  CHRISTIANITY 22 

THE  DAWNING  OF  THE  NEW  DAY      ...  27 

AMERICA 36 

THINGS  TO  THINK  ABOUT 55 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  69 


All  animals  are  living  hieroglyphs. 

The  dashing  dog,  and  stealthy  stepping  cat, 

Hawk,  bull,  and  all  that  breathe,  mean  something  more 

To  the  true  eye  than  their  shapes  show;  for  all 

Were  made  in  love  and  made  to  be  beloved. 

Thus  must  he  think  as  to  earth's  lower  life, 

Who  seeks  to  win  the  world  to  thought  and  love. 

PHILIP  JAMES  BAILEY 


THE  PURPOSE 


JVlY  purpose  in  this  small  volume  is  to 
be  of  service,  particularly  to  the  ordinary 
humane  worker.  Scattered  over  the  coun- 
try are  many  deeply  interested  in  the 
cause  that  has  for  its  aim  the  prevention 
of  cruelty  to  animals  and  the  fostering 
of  such  a  sentiment  as  will  ultimately 
make  prosecution  for  cruelty  unnecessary. 
Not  a  few  of  these  workers  are  called  upon 
from  time  to  time  to  speak  upon  some 
phase  of  the  subject.  Often  they  are  far 
from  public  libraries  where  such  books 
might  be  obtained  as  those  which  would 
be  of  assistance  to  them.  It  has  seemed 
to  me  that  a  brief,  yet  general  survey  of 
the  history  of  the  humane  idea  would  be 
found  useful. 

It  was  Mr.  Henry  S.  Salt's  "Animals' 
Rights,"  which  I  read  many  years  ago, 
that  first  indicated  to  me  the  direction  in 
which  to  look  for  material  upon  this  theme. 
To  Mr.  Salt  I  am  much  indebted,  not  only 
for  what  he  has  so  effectively  done  him- 
self, but  for  the  names  of  authors  to  whom 
he  has  called  attention.  To  the  Countess 
Cesaresco  I  am  also  under  no  little  obliga- 
tion. Her  work  entitled  "The  Place  of 


IX 


X  THE     PURPOSE 

Animals  in  Human  Thought"  has  been 
of  especial  service  to  me.1  Wherever  I 
have  come  upon  any  one  with  information 
to  offer  upon  our  topic  I  have  freely  availed 
myself  of  it. 

It  has  been  difficult  to  keep  within  the 
narrow  limits  to  which  I  have  tried  to  con- 
fine myself.  So  many  phases  of  the  sub- 
ject have  been  left  untouched,  so  much 
excluded  that  might  have  been  written, 
that  the  incompleteness  of  what  I  have 
attempted  can  be  no  more  evident  to 
anyone  else  than  it  is  to  me. 

1  In  her  "Outdoor  Life  in  Greek  and  Roman  Poets," 
there  will  also  be  found  many  interesting  references  to 
fondness  for  animals  on  the  part  of  ancient  Greeks  and 
Romans,  especially  among  those  who  sought  pleasure  in 
the  pursuits  of  agriculture. 


THE  HUMANE  IDEA 


Yet  I  doubt  not  through  the  ages  one  increasing  purpose 

runs, 
And  the  thoughts  of  men  are  uriden'd  vrith  the  process  of 

the  suns.  TENNYSON 

A  HE  attempt  is  made  in  this  little 
book  to  trace,  as  briefly  as  possible,  the 
history  of  that  humane  sentiment,  par- 
ticularly with  reference  to  animals,  out 
of  which  has  grown  at  last  the  multitude 
of  organizations  that,  in  our  modern  day, 
not  only  seek  to  defend  God's  lowlier  crea- 
tures from  man's  inhumanity,  but  to  widen 
still  further  the  spirit  that  unceasingly 
pleads  for  the  just  and  kindly  treatment 
of  all  sentient  life.  Man's  relation  to  man, 
as  well  as  his  relation  to  other  animals, 
falls  within  the  circle  of  that  spirit  as  it 
finds  expression  in  what  is  slowly  coming 
to  be  known  as  —  humane  education. 

The  study  is  a  fascinating  one  and 
broadens  under  investigation  till  one  finds 
himself  led  out  into  many  lands,  and  set 
face  to  face  with  the  history,  the  literature, 
the  art,  and  the  religions  of  mankind. 


Of  all  the  beasts  he  learned  the  language. 
Learned  their  names  and  all  their  secrets, 
How  the  beavers  built  their  lodges, 
Where  the  squirrels  hid  their  acorns, 
How  the  reindeer  ran  so  swiftly 
Why  the  rabbit  was  so  timid, 
Talked  with  them  whene'er  he  met  them, 
Called  them  "Hiawatha's  Brothers." 

LONGFELLOW 


PRIMITIVE  MAN 


THE 


story  even  of  primitive  man,  so 
far  as  we  can  fashion  it,  is  not  without 
interest  to  the  student  who  follows  back 
the  trail  in  this  realm  of  life.  Our  earliest 
ancestors,  it  seems  very  probable  in  the 
light  of  what  we  know,  were  far  less  in 
need  of  humane  societies  than  we  are. 
That  they  were  not  at  first  hunters  and 
slayers  of  their  humbler  brethren  of  earth 
and  air  I  think  we  are  warranted  in  believ- 
ing. Such  other  forms  of  life  besides  their 
own,  as  those  which,  under  the  influence  of 
domestication,  came  to  share  with  them 
their  lot,  were  cherished,  it  is  supposed,  as 
friends  and  helpers.  Probably  only  as  the 
race  moved  toward  cooler  climates,  or  as 
great  climatic  changes  transformed  some 
sunnier  land  into  one  of  snow  and  ice,  did 
man  find  himself  compelled  to  kill  the  furry 
creatures  of  the  wild  to  clothe  himself  in 
their  skins,  or  to  supply  himself  with  their 
flesh  for  food.  It  was  necessity,  may  we 
not  believe,  that  at  first  forced  him  into 
his  carnivorous  habits. 

Some  may  recall  Ovid's  words,  perhaps 
more  scientific  than  once  imagined,  with 
reference  to  the  Golden  Age: 


4  THE    HUMANE     IDEA 

"We,  by  destroying  life  our  life  sustain, 
And  gorge  the  ungodly  man  with  meats  obscene. 
Not  so  the  Golden  Age,  which  fed  on  fruit, 
Nor  durst  with  bloody  meals  its  mouth  pollute." 1 

All  this,  however,  was  long  before  the 
time  of  the  earliest  man  of  whom  we  have 
any  definite  knowledge.  Yet  even  this 
ancestor  of  ours  who  hunted  and  killed  was 
a  keen  observer  of  animal  life  as  his  draw- 
ings of  horse  and  reindeer  on  bits  of  bone, 
unearthed  centuries  after,  bear  witness. 

1See  "Outdoor  Life  in  Greek  and  Roman  Poets," 
(Countess  Evelyn  Martinengo-Cesaresco),  chap.  IX,  p. 
166,  for  evidences  of  Ovid's  love  for  animals.  With 
reference  to  animal  sacrifices  he  says:  "But  what  didst 
thou,  O  ox,  and  what  did  ye,  O  gentle  sheep,  to  deserve  a 
like  fate?" 

Also  "The  Animals'  Cause,"  published  by  the  Animal 
Defence  and  Antivivisection  Society,  London,  1909,  p.  362. 


THE  HEBREW 


His  tender  mercies  are  over  all  His  works. 

A  PSALMIST 

IF  we  begin  with  the  Jewish  scriptures 
not  a  few  golden  sayings  will  be  recalled 
that  tell  of  this  spirit  working  in  the  soul 
of  ancient  Israel.  Of  course,  reply  may  be 
made  at  once  that  the  whole  system  of 
animal  sacrifices  goes  far  to  refute  any 
special  regard  for  animal  life  during  a 
long  period  of  Jewish  history.  It  may  be 
said,  however,  that  many  hold  —  they  be- 
lieve with  entire  reason  —  that  for  that 
appalling  institution  of  bloodshed  which 
was  a  part  of  Israelitish  worship  there 
was  no  actual  divine  sanction;  that  we 
must  see  here  the  persistence  of  traditional 
customs  and  the  influence  of  a  priestly 
order  with  ends  to  subserve  that  were 
widely  different  from  those  great  moral 
goals  which  rose  before  the  inspired  visions 
of  the  prophets.  One  must  not  forget  the 
significance  of  Jeremiah's  words  (7:22), 
"For  I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor 
commanded  them  in  the  day  that  I  brought 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning 
burnt  offerings  or  sacrifices;  but  this  thing 
commanded  I  them,  saying,  Obey  my 

5 


6  THE     HUMANE     IDEA 

voice,  and  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall 
be  my  people."  : 

Then  we  recall  such  positive  sayings  as, 
"Thou  shall  not  muzzle  the  ox  when  he 
treadeth  out  the  corn";2  "Six  days  shalt 
thou  do  thy  work,  and  on  the  seventh  day 
shalt  thou  rest,  that  thine  ox  and  thine 
ass  may  rest,  etc.";3  "Thou  shalt  not 
seethe  a  kid  in  his  mother's  milk"; 4  "The 
righteous  man  regardeth  the  life  of  his 
beast."  6  Many  similar  utterances  could 
be  quoted  if  space  permitted.  Our  socie- 
ties for  the  protection  of  children  and 
animals  might  indeed,  if  they  wished,  go 
back  to  the  days  of  the  old  Hebrew  prophet, 
Jonah,  for  a  divine  sanction  of  their  exist- 
ence. The  foolish  heart  of  the  ungracious 
preacher,  you  remember,  was  bidden  con- 
template what  the  destruction  of  Nineveh 
would  mean  to  helpless  children  (the  "six 
score  thousand  that  did  not  discern  be- 
tween their  right  hand  and  their  left"), 
and  "much  cattle."6  All  will  recall 
Isaiah's  vision  of  that  holy  mountain  in 
which  there  is  nothing  to  hurt  or  to 
destroy.7 

1  See  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  Vol.  IV,  article  on 
"Sacrifice";  also  "The  Prophecies  of  Jeremiah,"  C.  J. 
Hall,  p.  165.  2  Deuteronomy  xxv,  4. 

8  Exodus  xxiii,  12.  *  Exodus  xxiii,  19. 

6  Proverbs  xii,  10.  6  Jonah  iii,  11. 

7  For  a  similar  prophetic  vision,  much  discussed  as  to 
its  interpretation,  see  the  "Fourth  Eclogue"  of  Vergil. 


THE  GREEK 


Yet  dying  as  he  was  and  almost  drained  of  blood,  he  brought 
back  the  King  from  the  midst  of  the  foe,  .  .  .  and  when  he 
had  carried  him  beyond  weapon  range  he  fell  down  on  the  spot 
and  .  .  .  breathed  his  last  almost,  as  it  were,  with  the  con- 
solation of  human  feeling.  Then  King  Alexander,  when  he 
had  gained  the  victory,  founded  a  city  on  that  site,  and  in 
honor  of  his  horse  catted  it  Bucephala. 

AULUS  GELLIUS 


G 


•REECE,  too,  bears  her  witness  to  the 
prevalence  of  this  spirit  as  in  many  ways 
touching  into  softer,  fairer  colors  her 
marvelous  life.  True,  her  Homeric  heroes 
feasted  on  many  a  slain  victim  of  field 
and  stall,  when  "The  heralds  brought  a 
sacred  hecatomb  to  the  gods  through  the 
city,  and  the  long-haired  Grecians  were 
assembled  under  the  shady  grove  of  far- 
darting  Apollo."  But,  it  has  been  said, 
"the  ghost  of  a  scruple  had  to  be  laid  be- 
fore the  feast  could  be  enjoyed."  They 
had  no  butchers,  these  early  Hellenes. 
They  or  their  priests  slew  with  their  own 
hands  the  devoted  animals.1  The  ele- 
ment of  sacrifice  seems  to  have  been  pres- 
ent everywhere  as  a  sort  of  apology  to 

»  "The  Iliad,"  Bk.  XIX,  1,  253. 

7 


8  THE     HUMANE     IDEA 

the  victim  whose  flesh  was  afterward  to  be 
eaten.  The  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  both 
show  us  an  almost  modern  attitude  held 
by  not  a  few  toward  the  creatures  that 
were  man's  faithful  helpers.  The  ox  that 
plowed  his  fields,  the  horse  that  carried 
him  in  battle,  —  these  were  prized  and 
loved  by  many  of  Homer's  bravest  and 
best. 

The  following  lines  I  have  found  quoted 
from  the  Greek  poet  Addaeus  Macedonis: 

*' Alkon's  ox  is  worn  and  old, 
It  has  gained  him  grain  and  gold; 
Must  it  to  the  shambles  go? 
*Nay,'  says  Alkon,  'never  so. 
Long  he  helped  me  at  the  plough, 
I'll  be  grateful  to  him  now  — 
His  declining  days  shall  pass 
Knee  deep  in  the  pleasant  grass.*  " l 

This  might  have  been  written  yesterday, 
so  truly  does  it  represent  many  a  modern 
man's  thought  toward  some  loyal  four- 
footed  servant.  No  one  who  has  ever  read 
the  Odyssey  can  forget  the  dog  Argus,  the 
sole  friend  of  wandering  Ulysses,  that,  old, 
neglected,  dying,  still  recognized  the  re- 
turning pilgrim.  This  is  the  picture  the 
great  artist  sketches  in  half  a  dozen  lines: 

"A  dog  was  lying  near, 
And  lifted  up  his  head  and  pricked  his  ears. 

1  See  Palatine  Anthology. 


THE    GREEK  9 

'Twas  Argus,  which  the  much  enduring  man 

Ulysses  long  before  had  reared,  but  left 

Untried,  when  for  the  hallowed  town  of  Troy 

He  sailed.  .  .  .  And  when  he  saw 

Ulysses  drawing  near,  he  wagged  his  tail 

And  dropped  his  ears,  but  found  that  he  could  come 

No  nearer  to  his  master,  .  .  . 

Ulysses,  absent  now  for  twenty  years."  l 

In  their  games,  the  chariot  race  was  not 
only  the  favorite  sport,  but  was  thought  of 
as  a  religious  event,  and  the  horses  parti- 
cipating in  the  triumph  shared  the  glory 
conferred  upon  their  owners.  "For  many 
centuries,"  Plutarch  tells  us,  "the  graves 
of  Cimon's  mares,  with  which  he  had  thrice 
conquered  at  the  Olympian  games,  were 
pointed  out  to  the  stranger,  near  his  own 
tomb." 2  The  Athenians  even  inflicted 
a  fine,  we  read,  on  some  heartless  monster 
who  skinned  a  goat  alive.3  "Wanton 
cruelty  to  animals,"  it  has  been  written, 
and  I  think  justly,  "seemed  to  the  Greeks 
an  outrage  to  the  gods." 

Herodotus,  in  a  story  quoted  by  Lecky, 
represents  the  sparrows  that  nested  under 

1  "The  Odyssey,"  Bk.  XVII,  11,  291-327. 

2  Montaigne's  "Essays,"  close  of  chap.  LXVIII. 

The  statement  is  also  made  in  this  connection  that 
Xanthippus  "caused  his  dog  to  be  interred  on  an  eminence 
near  the  sea,  which  has  ever  since  retained  the  name." 

3  "The  Place  of  Animals  in  Human  Thought,"  Countess 
Martinengo-Cesaresco,  p.  30. 


10  THE     HUMANE     IDEA 

the  porticos  of  the  temples,  as  the  guests 
of  the  gods;  and  Aelian  is  reported  by 
Lecky  as  saying  that  the  Athenians  con- 
demned to  death  a  boy  for  killing  a  sparrow 
that  had  taken  refuge  in  the  temple  of 
Aesculapius.1  We  all  recall  the  Hebrew 
singer's  exquisite  lines: 

"Yea,  the  sparrow  hath  found  an  house 
And  the  swallow  a  nest  for  herself  where  she  may  lay  her 

young, 

Even  thine  altars,  O  Lord  of  Hosts 
My  King,  and  my  God."  2 

The  influence  of  Pythagoras'  (died  496 
BC?)  teaching  with  reference  to  transmigra- 
tion deserves  more  attention  than  we  have 
time  to  give.  It  may  at  least  be  said  that 
there  are  those  who  have  ventured  the 
suspicion  that  his  hidden  motive  in  the 
promulgation  of  the  doctrine  of  reincarna- 
tion was  to  make  men  more  humane. 
That  this  was  the  effect  of  his  life  and 
work  will  scarcely  be  questioned. 

Aristotle's  "On  the  Parts  of  Animals" 
has  still  interest  for  the  philozoist.  "Man 
and  the  mule,"  he  remarks,  "are  always 
tame."  We  may  not  like  the  grouping,  but 
he  might  have  said  a  worse  thing  about  us. 
The  mule  is  a  much  maligned  creature. 
He  is  no  fool,  as  the  old  colored  man  inti- 

1  Lecky's  "European  Morals,"  Vol.  II,  p.  163. 
8  Psalm  Ixxxiv. 


THE    GREEK  11 

mated  when  he  said:  "I  have  learned  if 
you  have  anything  to  say  to  a  mule,  you 
better  say  it  to  his  face."  Except  in  the 
senses  of  touch  and  taste,  Aristotle  held 
we  are  far  surpassed  by  the  other  animals. 
Though  he  affirmed  that  only  man,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  has  the  power  of 
reason,  he  found  in  animals  evident  traces 
of  a  moral  disposition.1  He  recognizes 
in  them  foresight,  skill  in  meeting  diffi- 
cult situations  that  suddenly  arise,  and  a 
strange  power  often  of  anticipating  changes 
in  wind  and  weather.  With  many  others, 
we  should  not  hesitate  to  differ  with  this 
great  Greek  authority  concerning  the 
animal's  inability  to  reason.  When  a  dog 
stands  on  the  bank  of  a  stream,  prepares 
to  jump,  runs  farther  up  where  the  stream 
is  narrower,  looks,  hesitates,  then  goes 
still  farther  up  to  a  yet  narrower  place 
before  making  the  leap;  we  wonder  how 
that  mental  act  differs  from  our  own  in 
deciding  whether  it  is  safe  to  attempt  to 
spring  over  a  brook  where  it  is  six  feet  wide 
or  whether  we  would  not  better  follow  up 
the  bank  and  try  it  where  we  felt  much 
surer  of  not  slipping  back  or  landing  in  the 
water. 

1  See  "On  the  Parts  of  Animals,"  Bk.  II,  chap.  X. 
"For  of  all  living  beings  with  which  we  are  acquainted, 
man  alone  partakes  of  the  divine,  or,  a,t  any  rate,  partakes 
of  it  in  a  fuller  measure  than  the  rest.'* 


12  THE     HUMANE    IDEA 

On  the  whole,  in  spite  of  the  exceptions 
that  confront  us  in  Greek  history  and 
literature,  and  notwithstanding  the  atti- 
tude of  contempt  in  which  so  largely  the 
Greeks  regarded  the  world  outside  their 
own  borders,  and  their  system  of  slavery, 
the  Greeks  were  in  many  respects  respon- 
sive to  the  influence  of  the  humane  spirit, 
and  did  much  to  enlarge  its  power. 1 

Both  Plutarch  and  Pliny  the  Elder  are 
authorities  for  the  following  interesting 
story  that  reveals  something  of  the  sensi- 
tiveness of  ancient  Greece  to  the  claims  of 
this  spirit :  "  When  Pericles  was  building  the 
Parthenon,  a  great  number  of  mules  were 
employed  in  drawing  the  stones  up  the 
hill  of  the  Acropolis.  Some  of  them  be- 
came too  old  for  the  work,  and  these  were 
set  at  liberty  to  pasture  at  large.  But  one 
old  mule  gravely  walked  every  day  to  the 
stone  yard  and  accompanied,  or  rather  led, 
the  procession  of  mule  carts  to  and  fro. 
The  Athenians  were  delighted  with  its 
devotion  to  duty  and  decided  that  it  should 
be  supported  at  the  expense  of  the  state 

1  When  it  was  suggested  once  that  certain  cruel  sports, 
in  imitation  of  the  Roman  spectacles,  should  be  intro- 
duced into  Athens,  we  are  told  that  one  opposing  it  said, 
in  his  address  to  the  people,  "Men  of  Athens,  before  you 
pass  this  motion,  do  not  forget  to  destroy  the  Altar  of 
Pity." 

See  Henry  S.  Salt's  "Humanitarianism:  Its  General 
Principles  and  Progress."  * 


THEGREEK  13 

for  the  rest  of  its  days."  x  According  to 
Pliny,  the  mule  of  the  Parthenon  lived  till 
it  had  attained  its  eightieth  year,  "a 
record,"  it  has  been  cleverly  observed, 
"that  seems  startling  even  having  regard 
to  the  proverbial  longevity  of  pensioners." 
Suppose  the  story  but  a  legend,  which  we 
have  no  reason  to  do,  even  then,  that  the 
legend  arose,  is  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
a  regard  for  man's  humble  servants  that 
we  had  hardly  expected  to  find  so  far  away. 
Among  the  many  shrines  that  forced  the 
Christian  apostle  to  say,  "I  perceive,  O 
men  of  Athens,  that  ye  are  very  religious," 
was  one  consecrated  to  Compassion. 

1  "The  Place  of  Animals  in  Human  Thought,"  Countess 
Martinengo-Cesaresco,  pp.  66-67. 


THE  ROMAN 


The  birds  in  airy  space  might  safely  move. 
And  timorous  hares  on  heaths  securely  rove; 
Nor  needed  fish  the  guileless  hook  to  fear. 

OVID 

WE  enter  a  different  atmosphere  when 
we  pass  into  the  Roman  world.  "Who 
could  imagine,"  an  author  writes,  "Pericles 
presiding  over  a  Roman  holiday?"  To 
dwell  upon  the  cruel  and  bloody  sports  of 
the  Roman  arena  is  entirely  unnecessary. 
Lecky  says  that  in  a  single  day  at  the 
dedication  of  the  Colosseum  by  Titus,  five 
thousand  animals  perished.1  There  must 
have  been  big  game  hunters  and  trappers 
then  as  now,  justifying  their  barbarous 
cruelties,  if  not  on  scientific  grounds,  as  in 
our  day,  then  on  the  ground  of  the  profit 
to  be  gained.  Under  Trajan  the  games 
continued  for  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
three  consecutive  days.  These  atrocities, 
however,  it  should  be  said,  did  not  charac- 
terize the  earlier  history  of  Rome.  Prior 
to  the  year  186  B.C.  there  is  no  record  of 
such  bloodthirsty  cruelties  as  in  later  times 
furnished  amusement  for  the  pleasure- 

1  Lecky's  "European  Morals,"  Vol.  I,  p.  280. 
.  14 


THEROMAN  15 

loving  crowds  that  thronged  to  the  Colos- 
seum, where  wealth  and  fashion,  and 
extravagance  gone  mad,  reveled  in  scenes 
that  seem  to  us  incredible.1 

Still  we  are  forced  to  believe  that  even 
in  the  Rome  of  those  inhumane  days  there 
were  innumerable  exceptions  to  the  all 
too  common  disregard  of  the  sufferings 
of  men  and  animals.  Behind  those  few 
finer  spirits  whose  names  and  writings  add 
such  luster  to  the  annals  of  the  empire 
there  must  have  been  a  great  company  of 
kindly  souls  who  found  in  teachers  like 
Plutarch  (b.  46  A.D.),  Seneca  (4  B.C.  —  65 
A.D.),  and  Porphyry  (233-305),  voices 
that  uttered  thoughts  and  feelings  their 
own  souls  could  share.2  In  his  essay 

1  Yet  are  not  the  destruction,  in  modern  times,  of  our 
birds  of  rare  plumage,  our  merciless  butchery  of  the  seal, 
our  inhuman  methods  of  slaughtering  our  food  animals, 
our  prize  fights,  war,  and,  in  America,  our  lynchings,  quite 
as  serious  a  reproach  to  our  civilization  when  one  thinks 
of  the  Christian  centuries  behind  us? 

2  The  Countess  Cesaresco  makes  this  very  evident  in 
her  studies  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  poets.     There  was 
another  side  to  the  life  of  multitudes  in  what  we  call  pagan 
times  than  that  which  has  been  vividly  pictured  by  many 
writers  anxious  to  deepen  the  contrast  between  the  ages 
before  Christianity  and  those  that  followed  its  advent. 
The  spirit  of  Christianity  has  always  been  molding  human 
life  from  the  day  of  man's  first  appearance. 

See  also  Cicero's  letter  to  Marcus  Marius  (56  B.C.),  quoted 
in  Alfred  Austin's  autobiography,  Vol.  I,  p.  120,  "What 
pleasure  can  a  cultivated  man  have,  when  either  a  helpless 


16  THE    HUMANE     IDEA 

on  "Clemency"  Seneca  portrays  to  us  a 
compassion  toward  all  life  that  shows  how 
deeply  his  character  had  been  influenced 
by  Sotio,  his  master,  who  was  a  disciple  of 
Pythagoras  and  who  taught  a  sacred  regard 
for  all  living  creatures  whether  in  the 
human  realm  or  below  it.1 

Porphyry,  in  his  treatise  "On  Absti- 
nence from  Animal  Food,"  writes  words 
that  are  worthy  to  be  placed  beside  the 
latest  utterances  of  the  most  modern 
humanitarians.  He  says: 

"Justice  was  not  introduced  from  the 
alliance  of  men  to  each  other,  but  justice 
consists  in  abstaining  from  injuring  any- 
thing which  is  not  noxious.  Therefore 
since  justice  consists  in  not  injuring  any- 
thing, it  must  be  extended  as  far  as  to  every 
animated  nature.  He  who  is  led  by  reason 
does  not  confine  harmless  conduct  to  men 
alone,  but  extends  it  to  other  animals  and 
is  so  more  similiar  to'  divinty."  2  In  the 
same  Book  he  says:  "If,  however,  it  be 
requisite  to  speak  the  truth,  not  only 
reason  may  be  perceived  in  all  animals, 
but  in  many  of  them  it  is  so  great  as  to 
approximate  to  perfection."  These  last 
words  recall  the  saying  of  Darwin:  "We 
have  seen  that  the  senses  and  intuitions, 

man  is  torn  to  pieces  by  a  sanguinary  beast,  or  a  splendid 
animal  is  transfixed  by  a  hunting  spear." 

1  See  essay  on  "Clemency,"  Bonn's  Classical  Library. 

2  Porphyry  on  "Abstinence  from  Food,"  Bk.  III. 


THEROMAN  17 

the  various  emotions  and  faculties,  such 
as  love,  memory,  attention,  curiosity,  imi- 
tation, reason,  etc.,  of  which  man  boasts, 
may  be  found  in  an  incipient,  or  even 
sometimes  in  a  well-developed  condition, 
in  the  lower  animals."  x 

In  the  light  of  the  latest  conclusions 
of  science  are  we  not  returning  to  an 
earlier  and  truer  conception  of  the]  unity 
of  all  life,  and  to  a  brotherhood  wider  than 
that  which  has  been  the  theme  of  much 
of  our  Christian  theology? 

But  of  all  these  choice  souls  Plutarch  is 
the  one  pre-eminently  to  whom  we  turn  as 
the  teacher  of  his  day  and  worthy  to  be 
ranked  with  the  leaders  of  recent  times  who 
have  been  recognized  as  most  imbued  with 
the  spirit  of  a  great  humanity.  While 
evidences  of  his  gentle  temper  appear  in 
his  "Lives,"  it  is  in  the  far  less  well  known 
"Moralia"  that  he  is  seen  as  the  friend  and 
champion  of  that  wide  world  of  life  below 
us.  There  he  has  three  essays  devoted  to 
animals.  They  are,  "On  Eating  of  Flesh," 
"Which  are  the  most  Crafty,  Water  Ani- 
mals or  those  Creatures  that  tread  upon 
the  Land?"  and  "That  Brute  Beasts 
Reason."  2  "It  is  the  voice  of  the  highly 
civilized  Greek,"  says  the  Countess  Cesa- 

1  "Descent  of  Man,"  chap.  III. 

2  Plutarch's  "  Moralia,"  Prof.  William  W.  Goodwin's 
translation,  Vol.  V. 


18  THE     HUMANE     IDEA 

resco,  "addressing  the  young  barbarians 
of  Rome." 

The  essays  delight  you  with  their  wise 
moderation.  He  never  allows  his  feelings 
to  carry  him  into  wild  or  extravagant 
assertions.  Always  under  self-control, 
always  dignified,  calm,  patient,  not  seek- 
ing to  force  agreement  with  himself  when 
there  may  be  just  ground  for  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  he  nevertheless,  with 
utmost  frankness  and  sincerity,  stands 
forth  the  unswerving  friend  of  the  defense- 
less animals,  and  pleads  for  them  on  the 
ground  of  a  universal  benevolence  and  a 
wide  justice  that  make  his  words  sound 
almost  as  if  written  yesterday.  Though 
averse  to  eating  flesh,  he  refuses  to  de- 
nounce you  if  you  are  not  a  vegetarian. 
"Be  as  humane  as  you  can,"  he  says. 
"  Cause  as  little  suffering  as  possible.  Let 
us  eat  flesh  if  we  must,  but  for  hunger,  not 
self-indulgence.  If  we  kill  animals  we 
must  still  be  compassionate,  not  heaping 
outrages  and  tortures,  as,  alas  is  done 
every  day."  "When  we  take  our  recrea- 
tion," he  writes,  "those  who  help  us  in  the 
fun  ought  to  share  in  it  and  be  amused  as 
well."  "With  him  cruelty  to  animals  does 
not  lie  in  the  use  but  in  the  abuse  of  them," 
says  one  summarizing  his  opinions;  "it  is 
not  cruel  to  kill  them  if  they  are  incom- 
patible with  our  own  existence,  it  is  not 
cruel  to  tame  or  train  to  our  service  those 


THEROMAN  19 

made  by  nature  gentle  and  loving  toward 
man  which  become  the  companions  of  his 
toil  according  to  their  natural  aptitude." 
"The  Stoics,"  he  writes,  "made  sensi- 
bility toward  animals  a  preparation  to 
humanity  and  compassion  because  the 
gradually  formed  habit  of  the  lesser  affec- 
tions is  capable  of  leading  men  very  far." 

Take  the  following  from  his  "Marcus 
Cato":  "Kindness  and  beneficence  should 
be  extended  to  creatures  of  every  species, 
and  these  still  flow  from  the  breast  of  a 
well-natured  man  as  streams  that  issue 
from  the  living  fountain.  A  good  man  will 
take  care  of  his  horses  and  dogs,  not  only 
when  they  are  young,  but  when  old  and 
past  service."  "We  certainly  ought  not," 
he  continues,  "to  treat  living  creatures 
like  shoes  or  household  goods,  which  when 
worn  out  with  use,  we  throw  away,  and 
were  it  only  to  teach  benevolence  to  human 
kind,  we  should  be  merciful  to  other  crea- 
tures. For  my  own  part  I  would  not  sell 
even  an  old  ox." 

Of  Plutarch,  Lecky  says,  "He  places 
the  duty  of  kindness  to  animals  on  the 
broad  ground  of  the  affections,  and  he 
urges  that  duty  with  an  emphasis  and  a 
detail  to  which  no  adequate  parallel  can, 
I  believe,  be  found  in  the  Christian  writ- 
ings for  at  least  seventeen  hundred  years." l 

1  Lecky's  "European  Morals,"  Vol.  II,  p.  166. 


OTHER  LANDS 


Nay  let  me  lose  such  glory ;  for  its  sake 
I  would  not  leave  one  living  thing  I  loved. 
.  .  .  not  for  Swarga's  bliss 
Quit  I  Mahendra,  this  poor  clinging  dog. 

"Idylls  of  India,"  SIB  EDWIN  ARNOLD 

llGYPT,  Persia,  India,  the  lands  that 
own  the  faith  of  Mohammed,  indeed  the 
entire  Orient,  offers  much  to  the  student 
of  man's  relation  to  the  animal  world. 
Into  this  wide  field  I  do  not  even  attempt 
a  glance.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that, 
all  things  considered,  animals  probably 
have  received  a  kinder  treatment  in  far 
Eastern  countries  than  in  the  Occident. 
The  doctrine  of  reincarnation  has  doubt- 
less been  influential  here,  but  outside  of 
this  the  spirit  of  Eastern  civilization  in 
many  ways  is  of  a  gentler  type  than  that 
which  has  characterized  the  life  of  the 
Western  world.1  The  West  has  been 
described  by  more  than  one  Oriental  as 
"the  hell  of  animals." 

The  Jainas  will  kill  nothing.     They  will 
not  eat    flesh    of    any    kind.     And    this 

*  Sir  Edwin  Arnold's  "Idylls  of  India,"  "The  Hound 
of  Yudhishthira." 

20 


OTHER    LANDS  21 

not  because  of  their  transmigration  ideas 
merely,  but  because,  they  affirm,  of  kind- 
ness and  humanity.  This  last  statement 
I  know  is  seriously  questioned  by  com- 
petent scholars.  The  Buddhist  will  not 
kill  that  he  may  eat,  but  if  an  animal  is 
dead  and  the  life  gone,  "why,"  he  says, 
"shall  I  not  eat  its  flesh?" 

In  the  face  of  all  that  has  been  taught  in 
India  by  these  two  systems,  I  have  read 
very  recently  a  paper,1  by  a  humane  officer 
in  Bengal,  which  charges  upon  that  coun- 
try an  amount  of  cruelty  in  the  treatment 
of  animals  that  makes  one  wonder  if  it 
can  be  the  land  of  Buddha  and  Mahavira. 

Somewhere  I  saw  the  statement  that 
whatever  is  said  of  the  treatment  of  animals 
in  the  East,  this  at  least  is  true,  that  the 
children  are  not  cruel.  Travelers  in  Japan 
report  a  regard  for  animals  as  well  as  for 
children  that  stands  in  marked  contrast 
with  much  of  what  is  true  in  Europe  and 
America. 

1  "The  Animals'  Cause"  (published  by  the  Animal 
Defence  and  Antivivisection  Society,  London),  p.  316. 


EARLY  CHRISTIANITY 


So  the  wild  birds  were  tamed  by  love  alone, 
And  dwelt  with  Francis  in  his  convent  home. 

AXON 

/TLMONG  the  puzzling  questions  that 
arise  in  tracing  the  development  of  the 
humane  idea  is  that  connected  with  the 
apparent  indifference  of  early  Christianity 
with  regard  to  the  value  of  subhuman  life. 
The  fault  was  not,  certainly,  in  the  spirit 
or  teachings  of  the  founder  of  the  Christian 
faith.  No  more  wonderful  word  was  ever 
spoken  with  reference  to  man's  attitude 
toward  all  sentient  life  below  him,  or  with 
more  wide-reaching  significance  in  this 
direction,  than  the  saying  of  Jesus  which 
tells  us  that  not  even  a  sparrow  can  fall 
to  the  ground  without  our  Father.  If  the 
Infinite  and  the  Eternal  marks  the  death 
of  so  frail  and  fleeting  a  being  as  a  sparrow, 
how  can  we  be  the  children  of  our  Father 
in  heaven  and  not  bear  toward  bird  and 
beast  the  relationship  of  elder  brothers, 
guarding  them  against  all  injustice  and 
needless  suffering? 

St.  Paul,  influenced  here  no  doubt  by 
the  prevailing  Jewish  thought  of  his  day 

22 


EARLY   CHRISTIANITY          23 

with  reference  to  animals,  failed  to  see  in  the 
old  Hebrew  prohibition  against  muzzling 
the  ox  that  threshed  the  corn,  any  divine 
care  for  oxen;  that  was  something  quite 
unworthy  the  great  God.1  There  is  a  St. 
Paul  Humane  Society,  but  it  is  named 
after  St.  Paul  of  Minnesota  and  not  of 
Tarsus  or  Jerusalem.  Where  else,  how- 
ever, did  the  mighty  heart  of  St.  Paul  fail 
in  its  almost  divine  sympathies  and  com- 
passion? Surely  we  can  forgive  him  this. 

The  answer  to  the  question,  why  the 
Church  for  so  many  centuries  practically 
ignored  the  claims  of  the  animal  world  is 
too  many-sided  to  be  more  than  outlined. 
In  the  first  place  the  value  placed  upon  the 
individual  human  soul  by  Christianity  was 
supreme,  and  the  vast  importance  of  its 
salvation  was  naturally  held  to  be  the  all- 
absorbing  duty  of  the  Church.  This  dwarfed 
every  other  consideration.  Of  what  value 
are  the  beasts  that,  it  was  taken  for 
granted,  perish,  compared  with  the  one 
and  only  thing  of  moment  —  immortal 
man? 

Beyond  this,  and  perhaps  as  scarcely  less 
determining,  is  the  fact,  called  to  our  atten- 
tion by  a  modern  writer,  that  two  of  the 
pronounced  critics  of  early  Christianity 
were  Celsus  (first  half  first  century)  and 
Porphyry,  writers  sharing  in  ideas  of  the 

1  I  Corinthians  ix,  9-10. 


24  THE    HUMANE    IDEA 

animal    world   that    savored    of    oriental 
and  pagan  cults.1 

Both  these  men  were  worthy  antago- 
nists of  the  early  faith  —  Celsus,  a  man 
of  vast  learning  and  wide  knowledge  of 
historic  religions;  and  Porphyry,  known 
as  the  philosopher,  the  most  learned 
thinker  of  his  time.  "Celsus  appears 
to  have  inclined,"  says  this  writer, 
"toward  the  theory  that  the  soul,  life, 
mind,  only,  is  made  by  God,  the  corrupt- 
ible and  passing  body  being  a  natural 
growth  or  perhaps  the  handiwork  of  in- 
ferior spirits.  He  denied  that  reason  be- 
longed to  man  alone,  and  still  more  strongly 
that  God  created  the  universe  for  man 
rather  than  for  other  animals  —  only 
absurd  pride,  he  affirms,  can  engender  such 
a  thought.  He  knew  very  well  that  this, 
far  from  being  a  new  idea,  was  the  normal 
view  of  the  ancient  world  from  Aristotle 
to  Cicero.  He  takes  Euripides  to  task 
for  saying,  —  'The  sun  and  moon  are 
made  to  serve  mankind.'  Why  mankind? 
he  asks;  why  not  ants  and  flies?  Night 
serves  them  also  for  rest  and  day  for  seeing 
and  working.  As  to  ants,  he  says,  they 
practise  the  science  of  social  economy  just 
as  well  as  we  do;  they  have  granaries 
which  they  fill  with  provisions  for  the 

1  "The  Place  of  Animals  in  Human  Thought,"  Countess 
Martinengo-Cesaresco,  p.  339. 


EARLY   CHRISTIANITY          25 

winter;  they  help  their  comrades  if  they 
see  them  bending  under  the  weight  of  a 
burden;  they  carry  their  dead  to  places 
which  become  family  tombs;  they  address 
each  other  when  they  meet;  whence  it  fol- 
lows that  they  never  lose  their  way.  We 
conclude,  therefore,  that  they  must  have 
complete  reasoning  powers  and  common 
notions  of  general  truths,  and  that  they 
have  a  language  and  know  how  to  express 
fortuitous  events."  l 

Porphyry,  we  have  seen,  held  to  very 
much  the  same  ideas  concerning  animal 
life.  "It  could  not  have  been,"  says  the 
writer  recently  quoted,  "a  fortunate  coin- 
cidence that  two  of  the  most  prominent 
men  who  held  these  ideas  in  the  early 
centuries  were  declared  foes  of  the  new 
faith."  In  combating  them  the  early 
Fathers  may  have  been  unduly  led  to 
ignore  the  value  of  all  life  below  the 
human.  That  the  more  eastern  and  pagan 
faiths  gave  a  larger  place  in  their  thought 
to  the  subhuman  world  of  life,  I  feel 
personally  convinced,  had  something  to  do 
with  the  seeming  disregard  of  the  whole 
subject  by  the  Fathers. 

Here  at  least  is  the  fact  that  for  centuries 
the  Church  remained  steadily  indifferent 
to  the  claims  of  the  lower  animals;  and,  — 
save  for  such  exceptions  as  St.  Francis 

1  See  Maeterlinck's  "The  Life  of  the  Bee." 


26  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

of  Assisi  (1182-1226),  and  the  experiences 
of  a  host  of  saintly  anchorets  which  gave 
rise  to  many  a  legend  of  animal  intelli- 
gence and  companionship,  and  the  ani- 
mal symbols  used  of  Christ,  like  the  lamb, 
the  panther,  and  others,  —  exerted  no 
influence  to  inculcate  the  spirit  of  any 
just  consideration  for  them. 

Perhaps  this  ought  not  to  surprise  us,  for, 
even  down  to  our  own  day,  it  can  hardly  be 
said  that  the  ministry  of  the  Christian 
church  as  a  whole  sustains  any  vital  rela- 
tion to  the  great  humane  movement.  There 
are  splendid  exceptions,  but,  to  the  vast 
majority  of  them,  the  care  and  considera- 
tion given  to  animals  seems  rather  the  work 
of  men  and  women  more  or  less  odd,  to 
say  the  least.  This,  at  any  rate,  we  are 
compelled  to  say  as  the  result  of  our  ex- 
perience—  and  it  is  an  experience  that 
entitles  us  to  speak  with  some  degree  of 
assurance  —  that,  directly,  the  pulpit  has 
not  been,  as  an  institution,  a  very  serious 
helper  of  our  humane  societies. 


THE   DAWNING  OF  THE 
NEW  DAY 


The  year's  at  the  Spring, 
The  day's  at  the  morn. 

BROWNING 

W  E  wait  till  the  time  of  the  revival  of 
learning  before  we  begin  again  to  hear, 
save  here  and  there,  any  voice  that  clearly 
intimates  that  animals  have  rights  that 
man  is  bound  to  respect.  Leonardo  da 
Vinci,  1452-1519,  and  Montaigne,  1533- 
1592,  and  Giordano  Bruno,  1548-1600, 
all  left  behind  them  sayings  that  remind 
one  of  Plutarch  and  Porphyry,  but  they 
were  the  exceptions.1  The  humanist  was 
by  no  means  always  the  humanitarian. 
Slowly,  however,  in  that  period  marked 
by  many  a  fierce  spirit  of  cruelty  and  brutal 
inhumanity  does  the  humane  sentiment 
rise  into  recognition.  Still  it  is  not  until 

1  Montaigne's  "Essays,"  chap.  LXVIII,  "Of  Cruelty." 
"There  is  a  certain  natural  commerce  and  mutual  obliga- 
tion between  them  (the  animals)  and  us."     See  also  chap. 
LXIX  for  many  references  to  animals. 
27 


28  THE   HUMANE    IDEA 

we  come  into  the  eighteenth  century  that 
the  evidences  appear  in  the  recorded  utter- 
ances of  leaders  of  thought  that  men's 
consciences  are  seriously  awakening  to 
their  duties  to  their  humbler  fellow-crea- 
tures. Voltaire  and  Rousseau  were  fore- 
most spirits  of  that  period  which  began  to 
see  with  nobler  vision  the  larger  things  that 
opened  before  humanity.  It  was  Rousseau 
who,  no  matter  what  we  say  of  his  strange 
life,  said,  "O  men  be  humane!  It  is  your 
first  duty.  What  wisdom  can  there  be  for 
you  without  humanity?"1  "From  the 
great  Revolution  of  1789,"  says  Henry  S. 
Salt,  "dates  the  period  when  the  world- 
wide spirit  of  humanitarianism,  which  had 
hitherto  been  felt  by  but  one  man  in  a 
million  —  the  thesis  of  the  philosopher  or 
the  vision  of  the  poet  —  began  to  disclose 
itself,  gradually  and  dimly  at  first,  as  an 
essential  feature  of  democracy."  2 

Leaving  untouched  the  doctrine  of  Des- 
cartes which  ranked  the  lower  animals  as 
mere  automata,  without  sensibility  or 
capacity  for  pain  —  a  teaching  which  un- 
doubtedly had  much  to  do  with  retard- 
ing the  development  in  many  quarters 

1  For  Rousseau's  fondness  for  animals  see  his  "Second 
Dialogue." 

Whether  we  translate  these  words  "O  men  be  humane," 
or  "O  men  be  human,"  it  matters  not  for  the  thought. 

8  See  Henry  S.  Salt's  "Animals'  Rights,"  p.  4. 


DAWNING   OF   THE   NEW   DAY      29 

of  a  juster  conception  of  animal  life;  pass- 
ing by  Schopenhauer's  opposition  to  this 
teaching  of  the  Cartesian  School,  in  his 
"Foundation  of  Morality,"1  we  turn  to 
the  England  of  the  eighteenth  century  to 
find  the  marked  leaders  of  this  later  day 
in  the  realm  of  the  humanitarian  move- 
ment so  far  as  animals  are  concerned. 

There  are  many  names  that  deserve 
attention,  but  we  tarry  to  mention  only 
a  few.  There  was  John  Hildrop,  1742, 
author  of  "Free  Thought  upon  the  Brute 
Creation."  The  Rev.  Dr.  Humphrey 
Primatt,  also,  1776,  whose  "Dissertation 
on  the  Duty  of  Mercy  and  the  Sin  of 
Cruelty  to  Brute  Animals"  is  a  strong 
plea  for  justice  and  humanity.  We 
select  the  following  from  one  of  his 
volumes: 

"And  for  the  same  reason  (that  is,  be- 
cause a  man  would  consider  it  unjust  to 
cause  another  man  unnecessary  pain)  he 
will  not  torment  or  abuse  a  brute,  but  will 
consider  that  the  meanest  creature  upon 
earth,  if  it  be  in  no  respect  harmful  to  him, 
has  an  equal  right  with  him  to  enjoy  the 
blessings  of  life." 

"The  many  horrid  instances  of  cru- 
elty practised  by  men  .  .  .  would  almost 
tempt  one  to  think  that  a  great  part  of 

1  For  translation  of  a  remarkable  passage  see  Mr. 
Howard  Williams'  "Ethics  of  Diet." 


30  THE     HUMANE     IDEA 

mankind  believed  that  cruelty  to  brutes  is 
not  an  act  of  injustice.  It  is  certain, 
however,  that  the  cruelty  of  men  to  brutes 
is  a  greater  act  of  injustice  than  the 
cruelty  of  men  to  men." 

He  then  proceeds  to  show  that  animals 
have  the  following  rights:  The  right  to 
food,  to  rest  and  to  tender  usage  at  the 
hands  of  men,  for  he  says,  "These  things 
the  goodness  of  their  Creator  has  been 
pleased  to  covenant  for  on  their  behalf 
and  to  enjoin  by  His  written  law." 
This  he  shows  by  the  words  which  "for- 
bid the  thresher  to  muzzle  the  ox,"  by 
the  command,  "the  cattle  shall  have 
rest  on  the  Sabbath  day,"  and  by  the 
quotation,  a  "righteous  man  will  re- 
gard the  life  of  his  beast." 

He  laments  that  so  few  parents  instruct 
children  to  treat  animals  kindly.  Of 
allowing  children  to  be  cruel,  he  says, 
"Such  indulgence  roots  out  from  their 
once  tender  hearts  every  feeling  of  pity 
and  compassion,  so  true  is  it  that  our  treat- 
ment of  beasts  has  an  influence  on  our 
moral  character."  l 

He  advocates  the  Golden  Rule  as  our 
law  for  the  treatment  of  animals. 

Soame  Jenyns  (1704-1787),  essayist  and 
poet,  wrote  on  "Cruelty  to  Inferior 

1  "The  Book  of  Nature,"  Toogood,  Boston,  1802,  to 
which  is  added,  p.  87,  Primatt's  Dissertation. 


DAWNING   OF   THE    NEW   DAY       31 

Animals."  l  These  are  some  of  the  finer 
souls  who  prepared  the  way  for  better 
known  successors  and  for  the  larger  day 
into  which  we  have  entered. 

Among  such,  during  the  latter  part  of 
the  eighteenth  and  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  was  Jeremy  Bentham, 
scholar  and  jurist,  who  first  advocated 
legal  measures  for  the  protection  of  ani- 
mals, asserting  that  as  "slaves  have  been 
treated  by  the  law  exactly  upon  the  same 
footing  as,  in  England,  for  example,  the 
inferior  races  of  animals  are  still,  yet  the 
day  may  come  when  the  rest  of  the  animal 
creation  may  acquire  those  rights  which 
could  never  have  been  withholden  from 
them  but  by  the  hand  of  tyranny." 

Of  Bentham,  C.  M.  Atkinson,  one  of 
his  biographers,  says:  —  "Bentham  in- 
sisted that  acts  of  cruelty  to  animals  must 
be  classed  among  crimes  or  offenses  cog- 
nizable by  law;  the  word  crime,  said  he, 
being  incurably  indistinct  and  ambiguous, 
is  the  word  to  be  employed  on  all  rhetorical 
occasions.  He  foretold  the  coming  of  a 
time  when  humanity  shall  stretch  her 
mantle  over  everything  which  breathes." 

"Why,  he  asked,  should  the  law  refuse 
its  protection  or  deny  its  aid  to  any  sensi- 

1  We  have  been  pleased  to  discover  that  Jenyns  not 
only  wrote  upon  this  topic,  but  against  the  taxation  of 
the  American  colonies  by  Great  Britain. 


32  THE   HUMANE    IDEA 

tive  being?  With  characteristic  vigor  he 
urged  the  suppression  of  all  forms  of  wilful 
cruelty."  l 

It  is  exceedingly  interesting,  so  far  back 
from  our  present  time,  to  have  him  quoted 
as  "contending  that  the  death  of  animals 
may  be  rendered  less  painful  by  the  adop- 
tion of  many  simple  processes  well  worthy 
of  being  studied."  Here  is  a  prevision  of 
those  more  humane  methods  of  slaughter 
that  are  slowly  taking  possession  of  the 
minds  of  men.  Bentham  also  insisted  that 
"if  humanity  to  animals  —  the  sentiment 
of  benevolence  —  were  inculcated  in  the 
minds  of  children,  it  would  tend  toward 
the  prevention  of  crimes  of  violence." 2 

Here  again  he  is  in  entire  harmony  with 
the  latest  humanitarians.  His  biographer 
has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  dis- 
tinguished painter,  Hogarth,  "in  tracing 
cruelty  through  its  different  stages  had 
represented  it  as  beginning  with  delight 
in  the  suffering  of  animals,  and  ending  in 
the  most  savage  murder." 

But  Jeremy  Bentham  was  ahead  of  his 
time.  The  world  was  not  yet  ready  for 
legislation  in  defense  of  the  animal.  We 
wait  till  1811  before  another  champion  of 
the  jus  animalium  appears  with  the  pur- 

1  "Jeremy  Bentham:  His  Life  and  Work,"  C.  M. 
Atkinson,  pp.  145-147. 

*  See  Bentham's  "Pity's  Gift"  (1798). 


DAWNING   OF   THE   NEW   DAY       33 

pose  to  embody  it  in  the  law  of  the  land. 
Lord  Erskine,  in  that  year  of  grace,  intro- 
duces into  Parliament  a  bill  for  the  legal 
protection  of  animals.  In  that  august 
body,  where  noble  lords  of  the  realm, 
bishops  of  the  Church  of  the  All-Merciful 
sat  in  the  seats  of  the  mighty,  his  voice 
was  drowned  amid  a  wild  tumult  of  hisses, 
catcalls,  and  laughter. 

Ten  years  pass  and  once  again  a  member 
of  this  same  legislature  rises  to  offer  a  bill 
in  behalf  of  those  who  can  never  plead  for 
themselves  in  any  court  of  j  ustice .  This  time 
it  is  Richard  Martin  of  Galway ,  an  Irishman, 
a  man  whom  no  ridicule  or  laughter  can 
crush  or  cow.  Mr.  Martin,  justly  or  un- 
justly, we  cannot  say,  had  acquired  quite 
a  reputation  as  a  duelist.  It  is  related 
that  after  having  introduced  his  measure 
in  Parliament  and  having  returned  to  his 
seat,  a  startling  wail  broke  out  from  some- 
one behind  him.  This,  it  is  supposed,  was 
an  attempt  to  imitate  the  cry  of  a  cat  and 
was  evidently  aimed  in  reproach  at  Martin. 
He  rose  from  his  seat  and,  with  a  look 
that  few  men  cared  to  face,  turned  and 
very  deliberately  said,  "Will  the  gentle- 
man who  has  just  spoken  please  stand 
up?"  No  one  responding,  Martin,  ad- 
dressing the  Chair,  said,  "Mr.  Speaker, 
if  the  gentleman  who  insulted  me  will 
send  his  card  to  the  Clerk's  desk,  I  will 
retire  to  a  committee  room  and  explain 


34  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

the  bill  to  him."  1  It  is  needless  to  say  no 
card  was  forthcoming. 

It  needed  an  Irish  heart,  strong,  brave, 
impulsive,  yet  tender  and  compassionate. 
Backed  by  a  little  group  of  kindred  souls 
he  forced  through  Parliament  in  1822  the 
first  legislation  of  modern  times  that  prom- 
ised legal  protection  for  animals.  This  bill 
is  known  as  "Humanity  Martin's  Cattle 
Bill,"  and  Richard  Martin's  name  is  writ- 
ten high  on  the  scroll  that  bears  the  list 
of  the  great  leaders  in  our  cause. 

It  should  be  said  that  this  Act  of  1822 
did  not  include  by  any  means  all  animals. 
The  bull  and  the  dog  were  not  protected 
from  cruelty  by  its  provisions.  When, 
however,  in  1824  the  English  Society  for 
the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals  was 
founded,  as  the  fruit  of  Martin's  Bill, 
efforts  were  put  forth  for  its  amendment, 
resulting  in  securing  in  1835  protection  for 
the  bull,  the  dog,  and  lamb,  and  prohibit- 
ing the  baiting  and  fighting  of  dogs,  bulls, 
bears,  badgers,  and  cocks.2 

Other  and  important  amendments  have 
been  secured  from  time  to  time,  the  last 
having  been  obtained  in  1911,  which  has 
considerably  increased  the  power  of  the 
Royal  Society.  Queen  Victoria  was  a 
loyal  supporter  of  the  English  S.  P.  C.  A. 

1  "The  Humane  Movement,"  McCrea,  p.  30. 
•  "The  Humane  Movement,"  McCrea,  p.  31. 


DAWNING   OF   THE   NEW   DAY      35 

through  her  long  reign.  Indeed,  it  was 
because  of  her  interest  and  patronage  that 
the  title  "Royal"  was  bestowed  upon  the 
organization.  In  England  the  one  great 
parent  society  is  represented  by  many 
branches  throughout  the  island. 


AMERICA 


Let  each  new  temple,  nobler  than  the  last, 
Shut  thee  from  heaven  with  a  dome  more  vast. 

HOLMES 

W  HEN  we  cross  to  our  own  shores  we 
find  that,  long  before  any  organized  efforts 
were  made  in  America  toward  the  forma- 
tion of  societies  for  the  prevention  of 
cruelty  to  animals,  there  had  been  as  in 
England  notable  pioneers  in  the  field  of 
humane  sentiment  and  expression.  The 
first,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover, 
was  that  distinguished  advocate  of  so  much 
that  is  distinctly  American,  Thomas  Paine. 
In  his  "Age  of  Reason"  he  says: 

"The  moral  duty  of  man  consists  in 
imitating  the  moral  goodness  and  benefi- 
cence of  God  manifested  in  the  creation 
toward  all  his  creatures.  .  .  .  Everything 
of  persecution  and  revenge  between  man 
and  man,  and  everything  of  cruelty  to 
animals  is  a  violation  of  moral  duty." 

"The  only  idea  we  can  have  of  serving 
God  is  that  of  contributing  to  the  hap- 
piness of  the  living  creation  God  has 
made."  x 

1  "The  Age  of  Reason,"  by  Thomas  Paine,  edited  by 
Moncure  Daniel  Conway,  Part  I,  p.  83. 
36 


AMERICA  37 

There  is  also  in  the  Pennsylvania  Mag- 
azine for  May,  1775,  a  poem  by  him 
bearing  the  title,  "Cruelty  to  Animals 
Exposed."  The  poem  describes  Paine's 
vigorous  deliverance  of  a  little  kitten  from 
the  fate  of  being  destroyed  by  dogs  into 
the  midst  of  which  a  "wretch"  had  thrown 
her.  That  he  anticipated  the  need  of 
slaughter-house  reform  seems  evident  by 
his  description  of  a  scene  that  met  his  eye 
as  he  followed  the  heartless  possessor  of  the 
kitten  to  the  place  where  he  flung  her 
among  the  dogs: 

"Without  the  town,  besmear'd  with  filth  and  blood, 
And  foul  with  stench,  a  common  butch' ry  stood; 
Where  sheep  by  scores  unpitied  fell  a  prey, 
And  lordly  oxen  groan' d  their  lives  away; 
Where  village  dogs,  with  half  the  dogs  in  town, 
Contention  held,  and  quarrel'd  for  a  bone." 

Still  another  early  friend  of  animals 
appears  in  Samuel  J.  Pratt  (1838),  who, 
picturing  the  cruelties  of  slavery,  portrays 
also  the  suffering  of  the  subhuman  world, 
calling  attention  particularly  to  the  atroci- 
ties of  the  slaughter-house.  The  lines  that 
follow  are  worth  quoting: 

*°Tis  not  enough  that  daily  slaughter  feeds, 
That  the  fish  leaves  its  stream,  the  lamb  its  meads, 
That  the  reluctant  ox  is  dragg'd  along, 
And  the  bird  ravish'd  from  its  tender  song, 
That  in  reward  of  all  her  music  giv'n, 


38  THE    HUMANE   IDEA 

The  lark  is  murder'd  as  she  soars  to  Heaven: 

'Tis  not  enough,  our  appetites  require 

That  on  their  altars  hecatombs  expire; 

But  cruel  man,  with  more  than  bestial  power, 

Must  heap  fresh  horrors  on  life's  parting  hour: 

Full  many  a  being  that  bestows  its  breath, 

Must  prove  the  pang  that  waits  a  lingering  death, 

Here,  close  pent  up,  must  gorge  unwholesome  food, 

There,  render  drop  by  drop  the  smoking  blood; 

The  quiv'ring  flesh  improves  as  slow  it  dies, 

And  Lux'ry  sees  th'  augmented  whiteness  rise; 

Some  gashed  and  mangled  feel  the  torturer's  art, 

Writhe  in  their  wounds,  tho'  sav'd  each  vital  part. 

Ask  you  the  cause?  the  food  more  tender  grows, 

And  callous  Lux'ry  triumphs  in  the  blows: 

For  this,  are  some  to  raging  flames  consign'd 

While  yet  alive,  to  sooth  our  taste  refin'd! 

O  power  of  mercy,  that  suspends  the  rod! 

O  shame  to  man,  impiety  to  God! 

Thou  polish'd  Christian,  in  the  untutor'd  see, 

The  sacred  right  of  sweet  HUMANITY. 

Thine  is  the  World,  thy  crimson  spoils  enjoy. 

But  let  no  wanton  arts  thy  soul  employ; 

Live,  tho'  thou  dost  on  blood,  ah!  still  refrain 

To  load  thy  victims  with  superfluous  pain; 

Ev'n  the  gaunt  tiger,  tho'  no  life  he  saves, 

In  generous  haste  devours  what  famine  craves; 

The  bestial  paw  may  check  thy  human  hands, 

And  teach  dispatch  to  what  thy  want  demands, 

Abridge  thy  sacrifice,  and  bid  thy  knife, 

For  HUNGER  KILL,  BUT  NEVER  SPORT  WITH  LIFE." 

"Tyrants  o'er  brutes  with  ease  extend  the  plan, 
And  rise  in  cruelty  from  beast  to  man: 
Their  sordid  policy  each  crime  allows, 
The  flesh  that  quivers  and  the  blood  that  flows, 


AMERICA  39 

The  furious  stripes  that  murder  in  a  day, 
Or  torturing  arts  that  kill  by  dire  delay; 
The  fainting  spirit  and  the  bursting  vein, 
All,  all  are  reconcil'd  to  Christian  gain." l 

EARLY  LEGISLATION 

It  is  interesting  to  find  that,  some  time 
before  any  organized  movement  in  the 
direction  of  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to 
animals  was  begun  in  this  country,  three 
States,  at  least,  had  secured  the  passage  of 
laws  making  possible  to  some  degree,  the 
protection  of  animals.  The  first  law  that 
we  have  been  able  to  discover  is  the  follow- 
ing, which  was  passed  by  the  legislature  of 
New  York  State  in  1829: 

Section  26.  MAIMING  AND  CRUELTY  TO 
ANIMALS.  —  Every  person  who  shall  ma- 
liciously kill,  maim  or  wound  any  horse, 
ox  or  other  cattle,  or  any  sheep,  belong- 
ing to  another,  or  shall  maliciously  and 
cruelly  beat  or  torture  any  such  animal, 
whether  belonging  to  himself  or  another, 
shall,  upon  conviction,  be  adjudged  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor.  Title  6,  Part  IV., 
Chapter  1,  Section  26,  Vol.  II,  page  695, 
of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  January  1,  1829. 

Massachusetts  comes  next,  with  a 
statute  reported  in  1834  by  a  commission 

1  "Humanity  or  Rights  of  Nature"  (pamphlets  on 
slavery),  by  S.  J.  Pratt. 


40  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

appointed  by  the  governor  to  revise  the 
general  statutes  of  the  commonwealth, 
and  this  became  operative  in  1836: 

"Every  person  who  shall  cruelly  beat  or 
torture  any  horse,  ox  or  other  animal, 
whether  belonging  to  himself  or  another, 
shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the 
county  jail  for  not  more  than  one  year  or 
by  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars." 

Section  22,  Chap.  130,  Revised  Statutes 
of  Mass.  (1836). 

In  recommending  this  provision  to  the 
legislature  the  commissioners  say  in  their 
report  on  the  general  statutes  of  the  com- 
monwealth (1834): 

"It  probably  is  not  generally  known  in 
the  community  that  extreme  cruelty  to  ani- 
mals even  when  inflicted  by  the  owner  is 
an  offense  punished  by  the  common  law. 
Almost  every  one  must  have  witnessed 
very  revoltable  instances  of  such  cruelty, 
particularly  with  regard  to  horses.  There 
seems  to  be  less  excuse  for  the  commission 
of  this  offense  than  most  others;  and  the 
commissioners  submit  for  the  consideration 
of  the  legislature  the  expediency  of  adopt- 
ing some  reasonable  provision  on  the 
subject." 

At  common  law  cruelty  to  animals  was 
not  an  offense  on  the  ground  of  the  pain 
and  suffering  inflicted  (People  v.  Brunell 
48  How.  Pr.,  N.  Y.,  435).  But  when  the 
act  was  committed  publicly  and  so  as  to 


AMERICA  41 

constitute  a  nuisance,  or  when  committed 
with  a  malicious  intent  to  injure  the  owner 
it  was  indictable. 

(Stage  Horse  cases  15  Abb.  Pr.  N.S., 
N.  Y.,  51 ;  U.  S.  v.  McDuell,  5  Cranch  C.  C. 
(U.  S.)  391;  People  v.  Brunell,  supra.) 

It  was  therefore  in  1836  that  cruelty  to 
animals  first  became  in  Massachusetts  a 
criminal  offense  on  the  ground  of  suffering 
and  pain  inflicted. 

In  1855,  Senator  William  A.  Crabbe,  of 
Pennsylvania,  had  drawn  up  and  presented 
to  the  legislature  of  his  State  this  statute: 

AN  ACT 

To  prevent  and  punish  wanton  cruelty  to 
animals  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
Commonwealth  in  General  Assembly  met, 
and  it  is  hereby  enacted  by  the  authority 
of  the  same. 

That  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this 
act  any  person  or  persons  who  shall,  in 
the  City  of  Philadelphia,  wantonly  or 
cruelly  maltreat,  beat  or  otherwise  abuse 
any  animal  or  animals,  belonging  either  to 
himself  or  to  others, -shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  fined  by 
any  alderman  of  said  city,  for  the  first 
offense,  in  a  sum  not  less  than  five  dollars 
nor  more  than  ten  dollars,  and  for  the 


42  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

second  and  every  subsequent  offense,  in 
a  sum  not  less  than  ten  nor  exceeding 
twenty  dollars,  to  be  paid  to  the  guardians 
of  the  poor  for  the  use  of  the  said  city :  and 
if  said  fine  or  penalty  be  not  paid,  then  said 
alderman  shall  commit  said  offender  to 
the  county  prison,  there  to  remain  until 
discharged  by  due  course  of  law,  provided: 

That  when  the  fine  imposed  exceeds  the 
sum  of  five  dollars,  the  party  complained 
against  may  appeal  from  the  decision  of 
said  alderman  to  the  court  of  quarter  ses- 
sions, upon  his  entering  bail  in  the  nature 
of  a  recognizance  in  the  usual  manner,  for 
his  appearance  at  the  said  court,  where 
the  offense  shall  be  prosecuted  in  the  same 
manner  as  is  now  directed  by  law  in  such 
cases:  And  provided  also,  That  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  shall  in  no  way  interfere 
with  the  present  common  law  remedy  by 
indictment  except  when  the  party  has  been 
tried  before  an  alderman  as  aforesaid,  and 
the  case  not  appealed  from  or  returned  to 
the  court  of  quarter  sessions. 

Approved  the  third  day  of  May,  A.D. 
1855. 

JAMES  POLLOCK. 

Page  421  P.L.  1855. 

Originally  it  was  intended  that  this  law 
should  cover  the  entire  state  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, but  by  reason  of  an  amendment  it 
was  restricted  to  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 


AMERICA  43 


HENRY  BERGH 

The  first  organized  work,  however,  in 
behalf  of  animals  in  America  was  under- 
taken by  the  now  widely  known  humani- 
tarian, Henry  Bergh. 

Mr.  Bergh  was  born  in  the  city  of  New 
York  in  1823.  His  father,  who  had  been  a 
successful  shipbuilder,  left  him  at  his  death 
a  comfortable  fortune.  He  was  educated 
at  Columbia  College,  having  traveled  some 
time  in  Europe  before  the  completion  of 
his  college  life.  In  1862  he  was  appointed 
Secretary  of  the  Legation  at  St.  Peters- 
burg and  Acting  Consul.  It  is  there  that 
he  first  became  interested  in  the  subject 
of  prevention  of  cruelty  to  animals. 

Upon  his  return  to  New  York  he  de- 
voted himself  to  awakening  public  senti- 
ment on  their  behalf,  and  finally,  as  the 
result  of  his  unremitting  labor,  there  was 
passed,  April  10,  1866,  by  the  New  York 
State  Legislature,  the  act  of  incorporation 
of  the  American  Society  for  the  Preven- 
tion of  Cruelty  to  Animals.  On  April 
22,  twelve  days  later,  the  Society  was 
organized  in  Clinton  Hall.  Among  the 
notable  men  who  stood  with  Mr.  Bergh 
in  this  movement  were  Peter  Cooper, 
George  Bancroft,  the  famous  historian, 
and  Horace  Greeley. 

At  this  time  the  only  law  with  reference 


44  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

to  animal  protection  in  New  York  State 
was  one  which,  as  already  seen,  was  aimed 
at  any  person  who  "shall  maliciously  kill 
or  wound  any  horse,  ox,  cattle  or  sheep 
belonging  to  himself  or  another,  or  who 
shall  maliciously  and  cruelly  beat  any 
such  animal  belonging  to  himself  or 
another."  Nothing  in  this  law  was  de- 
signed to  cover  such  cruelties  as  were 
often  practised  upon  a  great  multitude  of 
food  animals,  nothing  that  protected  the 
cat  or  dog,  nothing  that  forbade  the  aban- 
donment of  a  sick  or  injured  animal,  or 
leaving  it  to  die  from  lack  of  food  and 
exposure. 

An  interesting  event  in  the  early  his- 
tory of  this  Society  has  been  told  by  one 
of  Mr.  Bergh's  biographers  as  follows: 
"A  benevolent  Frenchman  named  Louis 
Bonard  died  and  bequeathed  his  property 
to  the  Society.  Mr.  Bergh  did  not  meet 
Mr.  Bonard  until  just  before  his  death 
when  he  was  sent  for  to  visit  him  at  St. 
Vincent's  Hospital.  'I  have,'  said  the  sick 
man,  'long  entertained  a  deep  regard  for 
the  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty 
to  Animals  and  want  to  bequeath  to  it  all 
my  property. '  The  amount  was  more  than 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars.  It  has 
been  said  that  this  Mr.  Bonard  had  made 
a  large  part  of  his  fortune  in  the  fur  busi- 
ness and  that  it  was  a  satisfaction  to  his 
conscience  that  he  could  thus  in  some  way 


AMERICA  45 

try  to  make  recompense  for  the  cruelty  his 
business  had  necessitated." 

It  is  a  fact  not  generally  known  that  it 
was  also  through  Mr.  Bergh's  activities 
that  the  first  society  in  the  world  for  the 
protection  of  children  from  cruelty  was 
founded.1  He  died  March  12,  1888. 

I  know  of  no  more  striking  evidence 
of  the  progress  of  this  cause  in  America 
than  the  fact  that  forty-two  years  after 
Henry  Bergh,  amid  ridicule  and  contempt, 
founded  the  New  York  Society,  there  was 
established  at  Columbia  University  a 
chair  on  the  "Henry  Bergh  Foundation 
for  the  Promotion  of  Humane  Education." 

CAROLINE  EARLE  WHITE 

The  organization  of  the  second  anti- 
cruelty  society  in  the  United  States  took 
place  in  Philadelphia.  At  that  time  Mrs. 
Caroline  Earle  White,  now,  1912,  the 
President  of  the  Women's  Pennsylvania 
Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to 
Animals,  was  in  the  prime  of  her  early 
womanhood.  By  nature  deeply  interested 
in  the  animal  world,  she  was  led  by  reports 
of  what  was  being  done  in  New  York  to 
visit  Mr.  Bergh,  that  she  might  learn  from 
him  the  methods  he  had  adopted  in  form- 
ing the  American  Society.  She  returned 

1  Bulletin  of  the  American  S.  P.  C.  A.  for  February, 
1912. 


46  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

to  her  own  city  greatly  stirred  by  the 
interview  and,  single-handed,  set  about  at 
once  securing  the  pledges  of  prominent 
citizens  to  join  in  a  movement  to  organize 
a  similar  society  in  Philadelphia.  To  this 
lifelong  champion  of  the  animals'  cause  — 
this  noble  and  accomplished  woman  —  is, 
therefore,  due  the  founding  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Society  in  1867. 

GEORGE  THORNDIKE  ANGELL 

Two  years  before  Mr.  Bergh  had  called 
into  being  the  American  Society,  Mr. 
George  T.  Angell,  of  Boston,  in  1864,  had 
by  his  will  provided  that  in  case  of  his 
death  a  considerable  portion  of  his  prop- 
erty should  be  used  for  "circulating  in  the 
schools  and  elsewhere  information  calcu- 
lated to  prevent  cruelty  to  animals."  The 
Massachusetts  Society,  however,  founded 
by  Mr.  Angell,  was  not  organized  until 
March  31,  1868,  the  act  of  incorporation 
having  been  obtained  from  the  legislature 
eight  days  previously. 

George  T.  Angell,  who  founded  the 
Massachusetts  Society  for  the  Prevention 
of  Cruelty  to  Animals  and  the  American 
Humane  Education  Society  (this  latter 
incorporated  in  1889),  was  born  in  South- 
bridge,  Massachusetts,  June  5,  1823. 
Mr.  Aiigell  was  educated  at  Brown  Uni- 
versity and  Dartmouth  College.  He 


AMERICA  47 

was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  December, 
1851.  After  some  years  of  successful 
practice,  he  gave  up  his  chosen  profession 
and  devoted  the  remainder  of  his  life,  to 
the  ripe  age  of  eighty-six,  to  the  further- 
ance of  the  work  of  the  two  Societies  of 
which  he  was,  from  the  beginning  until 
his  death,  the  president  and  the  guiding 
genius. 

To  those  who  believe  that  underneath 
all  this  work  of  justice  and  kindness  there 
lies  a  foundation  of  abiding  faith  in  the 
eternal  source  of  these  virtues,  there  will 
be  pleasure  in  reading  the  following  from 
Mr.  AngelPs  Autobiographical  Sketches: 
"At  the  close  of  the  meeting  at  which  the 
Massachusetts  Society  for  the  Prevention 
of  Cruelty  to  Animals  was  organized,  Mr. 
Sturgis  (just  elected  honorary  secretary) 
went  with  me  to  my  office  underneath  the 
hall;  and  with  a  deep  sense  of  the  great 
work  we  believed  we  had  that  day  inaugu- 
rated, we  knelt  and  asked  God's  blessing." ! 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  from  its 
inception  this  Society  has  been  adminis- 
tered in  a  reverent  fear  of  God  and  with 
unfailing  faith  in  the  Eternal  Goodness. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Angell  re- 
garded the  work  of  the  American  Humane 
Education  Society  as  one  destined  to  have 
a  vastly  wider  influence  as  time  goes  on 

1  "  Autobiographical  Sketches,"  George  T.  Angell,  p.  12. 


48  THE    HUMANE   IDEA 

than  is  possible  to  any  society  that  exists 
chiefly  for  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to 
animals.  The  present  activities  of  this 
organization,  and  the  outlook  for  its  future 
as  an  educational  force  in  this  and  other 
lands,  certainly  justify  his  opinion. 

"OuR  DUMB  ANIMALS" 

Mr.  Angell  also,  in  June,  1868,  within 
a  few  months  of  the  organization  of  the 
Massachusetts  S.  P.  C.  A.,  began  the  pub- 
lication of  Our  Dumb  Animals,  the  first 
paper  of  its  kind  in  the  world.  The  cir- 
culation has  grown  remarkably  from  the 
beginning,  until  now  it  is  nearly  sixty-five 
thousand  a  month.  That  this  paper  has 
been  one  of  the  mightiest  missionary  forces 
in  carrying  far  and  wide  into  every  nation 
under  heaven  the  gospel  of  a  large  human- 
ity no  one  familiar  with  its  character  and 
history  can  doubt. 

Mr.  Angell  was  also  instrumental  in 
the  organization  of  the  Illinois  Humane 
Society.  In  1870  he  went  to  Chicago, 
engaged  an  office  on  Washington  Street, 
and  for  the  next  four  months  labored  in- 
cessantly, with  the  assistance  of  the  Hon. 
John  C.  Dore  and  Edwin  Lee  Brown,  for 
this  purpose,  the  result  being  the  forma- 
tion of  that  Society  in  the  year  1871. 
Among  the  names  forever  to  be  associated 
with  the  Illinois  Society  is  that  of  Mr. 


AMERICA  49 

John  G.  Shortall,  from  1892-1898  its 
honored  president.  It  was  to  this  courtly, 
distinguished,  and  accomplished  humani- 
tarian that  the  writer  of  these  words  owes, 
more  than  to  any  other,  his  interest  in 
humane  work. 

Other  societies  for  the  prevention  of 
cruelty  to  animals  have  followed  from  time 
to  time  in  the  several  States  of  the  Union 
until  there  are  now  something  more  than 
three  hundred  active  organizations.  Ap- 
proximately the  number  for  the  entire 
world,  as  nearly  as  can  be  determined,  is 
eight  hundred. 

THE  BAND  OF  MERCY  MOVEMENT 

The  first  Band  of  Mercy  was  organized 
in  England,  in  1875,  by  Catherine  Smithies. 
Yet  Mrs.  Smithies  was  more  than  willing  to 
share  with  Mr.  Angell  the  honor  connected 
with  the  organization  of  this  remark- 
able movement  that  has  spread  almost, 
if  not  quite,  around  the  world.1  Mir. 
Angell  had  visited  England  some  years 
before  and  while  there  had  been  very 
influential  in  arousing  interest  in  various 
forms  of  humane  work.  Among  the  people 
he  met  was  Catherine  Smithies,  who  wrote 
him  in  December,  1875,  referring  to  the 
Band  of  Mercy  organization,  "I  do  not 

1  "Autobiographical  Sketches,"  George  T.  Angell, 
pp.  36,  78,  82. 


50  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

forget  that  you  were  the  means  in  God's 
hand  of  beginning  the  Ladies'  Society,  one 
fruit  of  which  is  the  present  one." 

In  July,  1882,  just  as  Mr.  Angell  was 
preparing  for  a  campaign  of  humane  edu- 
cation, and  considering  drawing  up  a 
pledge  card  for  the  children  of  the  public 
schools,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Timmins,  of 
Portsmouth,  England,  came  to  this  coun- 
try. Mr.  Timmins  had  been  connected 
with  the  English  Band  of  Mercy.  His 
arrival  seemed  to  Mr.  Angell  a  veritable 
providence.  For  many  days  they  con- 
ferred over  the  project  of  an  American 
Band  of  Mercy  which  should  be  "different 
from  anything  that  had  preceded  it.  It 
should  include  all  harmless  living  crea- 
tures, human  and  dumb.  It  should  have 
its  own  pledge,  badge,  and  card  of 
membership." 

The  badge  agreed  upon  was  a  five- 
pointed  star  on  which  is  engraved  "Glory 
to  God,"  "Peace  on  Earth,"  "Good  Will 
to  All,"  "Kindness  to  all  Living  Crea- 
tures." The  pledge  adopted  was,  "I  will 
try  to  be  kind  to  all  harmless  living  crea- 
tures, and  try  to  protect  them  from  cruel 
usage."  This  has  since  been  changed  by 
omitting  the  word  "harmless."  Even  a 
harmful  creature  one  would  protect  from 
cruel  usage,  and  if  he  destroyed  it,  would 
do  it  mercifully. 

Among  the  first  to  identify  themselves 


AMERICA  51 

with  the  parent  band  in  Boston  were  the 
Governor  of  Massachusetts,  the  Mayor  of 
Boston,  the  Roman  Catholic  Archbishop, 
Chief  Justice  Morton  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  Wendell  Phillips.  Many  other 
distinguished  citizens  also  became  mem- 
bers. At  the  end  of  the  first  year  there 
were  ninety-three  organizations  with  about 
ten  thousand  members.  At  the  present 
writing,  1912,  there  are  85,098,  into  which 
have  been  gathered  something  more  than 
three  million  children. 

The  vast  influence  of  this  work  it  is 
impossible  to  estimate.  For  thirty  years 
it  has  been  reaching  the  children  of  our 
public  schools  in  every  State  of  the  Union. 
Hosts  of  these  are  now  men  and  women. 
Temporary  as  the  results  may  have  been 
in  many  cases,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
hundreds  of  thousands  have  felt  the  power 
of  its  spirit  and  that  their  attitude  toward 
all  sentient  life  has  been  changed  by  it. 
Steadily,  year  after  year,  it  has  been 
preaching  its  gospel  of  peace,  brotherli- 
ness,  kindness,  and  good  will.  How  large 
a  part  it  has  played  in  arousing  and  foster- 
ing the  peace  sentiment  in  this  country 
(it  has  always  been  protesting  against 
war)  no  one  can  ever  know. 

These  Bands  of  Mercy  exist  now  in 
nearly  every  civilized  country  of  the  world, 
and  are  in  more  or  less  direct  commu- 
nication with  the  head  office  in  Boston. 


52  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

Indeed  the  great  work  in  Cuba,  under 
Mrs.  Jeannette  Ryder,  with  whom  we 
constantly  co-operate,  is  carried  on  by  her 
Band  of  Mercy.  Within  the  past  two 
years  hundreds  of  these  bands  have  been 
organized  in  Turkey,  South  Africa,  Switzer- 
land, Bulgaria,  Greece,  and  South  America. 

THE  AMERICAN  HUMANE  ASSOCIATION 

A  word  should  be  said  about  this  organi- 
zation which  is  steadily  becoming  a  larger 
factor  in  the  humane  work  in  the  United 
States  and  Canada,  and  indeed  in  all  the 
countries  of  the  New  World.  Within  ten 
years  after  Mr.  Bergh  and  Mr.  Angell 
and  the  Pennsylvania  Society  had  started 
in  their  separate  fields  their  varied  activi- 
ties, the  need  was  felt  of  the  opportunity 
for  conference  by  humane  workers  gener- 
ally, and  particularly  for  the  purpose  of 
united  action  in  securing  proper  national 
legislation.  The  first  meeting  for  such 
a  purpose  was  held  Oct.  9,  1877,  in  Cleve- 
land, Ohio.  It  was  at  this  time  and  place 
that  the  Association  was  formed.  There 
were  present,  among  others,  John  G. 
Shortall,  Edwin  Lee  Brown,  and  Albert 
W.  Landon,  of  the  Illinois  Society,  Caroline 
E.  White  and  Sarah  K.  Davidson,  of  the 
Women's  Pennsylvania  Society,  Jos.  L. 
Smith,  of  the  Cincinnati  Society,  C.  P. 
Montague,  of  the  Maryland  Society, 


AMERICA  53 

Abraham  Firth,  of  the  Massachusetts 
Society,  and  R.  R.  Herrick,  of  the  Cleve- 
land Society.1 

The  idea  of  the  Association  was  that  of 
a  federation  of  all  the  societies  of  the 
country  whose  end  was  the  protection  of 
children  and  animals  from  cruelty.  It  was 
believed  that  in  an  annual  gathering  of 
the  representatives  of  these  rapidly  multi- 
plying bodies  there  would  be  furnished  the 
opportunity  for  the  discussion  of  questions 
of  common  interest,  and  that  matters  of  a 
national  character  could  be  dealt  with  by 
such  an  organization  much  better  than 
by  the  local  societies. 

In  one  of  its  pamphlets  its  objects  and 
methods  are  set  forth  in  the  following 
words:  "The  organization,  assistance  and 
encouragement  of  humane  societies  for  the 
prevention  of  cruelty,  especially  cruelty 
to  children  and  animals";  "The  owning, 
manufacturing,  making,  publishing,  buy- 
ing, distributing  and  giving  away  of 
humane  books,  papers,  periodicals,  tracts, 
pictures,  lantern  slides,  medals  and  other 
things  conducive  to  humane  education." 
It  desires  it  to  be  understood  that  its 
objects  are  "missionary  and  educational, 
and  that  it  seeks  in  particular  not  to 
interfere  with  or  conflict  with  any  local 

1  See  annual  reports  of  the  American  Humane 
Association. 


54  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

humane  society.  The  American  Humane 
Association,  being  incorporated  under 
United  States  law,  has  no  jurisdiction 
for  the  enforcement  of  state  laws." 

Any  anti-cruelty  society  in  the  land 
paying  ten  dollars  or  over  is  eligible  to 
membership.  Any  individual  paying  five 
dollars  or  over  is  also  eligible  to  a  voting 
membership. 

The  years  that  have  followed  have 
borne  witness  to  the  wisdom  of  the  founders 
of  the  Association.  From  1877  to  the 
present  it  has  held  its  yearly  convention. 
Its  headquarters  are  wherever  its  presi- 
dent resides.  At  present  they  are  in 
Albany,  N.  Y.,  the  residence  of  the  dis- 
tinguished and  widely  known  humani- 
tarian Dr.  William  O.  Stillman,  who  has 
been  president  since  1905,  and  who  is  also 
president  of  the  Mohawk  and  Hudson 
River  Humane  Society.1 

1  Literature  and  other  information  with  reference  to 
the  American  Humane  Association  can  be  obtained  by 
writing  the  President  of  the  Association  at  the  above 
address. 


THINGS  TO  THINK  ABOUT 


REFORM  IN  SLAUGHTER  1 

1  Thine  is  a  task  of  blood:  discharge  that  task 
With  mercy;  let  thy  victim  know 
No  pain,  but  let  the  sudden  blow 

Bring  death,  such  death  as  thou  wouldst  ask" 


I 


T  is  next  to  impossible  to  bring  these 
few  pages  to  an  end  without  a  brief  refer- 
ence to  one  or  two  subjects  that  are  vitally 
connected  with  humane  work.  Next  to 
humane  education,  which  I  think  we  are 
all  agreed  is  the  transcendent  need  of  the 
hour,  the  most  important  and  pressing 
duty  that  faces  the  philozoic  societies  of 
our  country  is  to  secure  the  adoption  of 
such  humane  methods  in  the  slaughter 
of  our  food  animals  as  shall  reduce  their 
sufferings  at  the  time  of  death  to  the 
minimum. 

The  cruelties  involved  in  the  transporta- 
tion and  slaughter  of  the  more  than  one 
hundred  millions  of  animals  (not  including 

1  See  articles  on  European  abattoirs  and  slaughtering 
methods  abroad  by  the  author    in  Our  Dumb  Animals 
for  August,  September,  and  October,  1911. 
55 


56  THE    HUMANE  IDEA 

poultry  and  fish)  that  are  annually  killed 
for  our  tables  beggar  description.  Not 
only  for  the  sake  of  the  animals,  but  in  the 
interests  as  well  of  the  public  health,  there 
is  scarcely  a  greater  reform  called  for  today 
than  the  abolishing  of  our  present  ancient 
and  inhuman  methods  of  slaughter  and  the 
wiping  out  of  the  private  slaughter-house, 
with  its  unnumbered  opportunities  for 
cruelty  and  the  spread  of  disease  through 
utterly  unwholesome  meat  and  unsanitary 
conditions,  and  the  supplanting  of  all  these 
chambers  of  torture  and  unlawful  traffic  in 
diseased  meat  by  publicly  built  and  con- 
trolled and  scientifically  managed  abattoirs. 

Here  is  the  supreme  task  and  duty  of 
the  American  humane  societies  of  our 
time.  We  are  as  far  behind  such  a  coun- 
try as  Germany  in  this  respect  as  bar- 
barism is  behind  civilization. 

The  larger  animals,  such  as  the  bullock 
and  cow,  we  grant,  are  generally  stunned 
either  by  a  blow  which  shatters  the  brain, 
or  in  some  cases,  by  a  bullet.  The  bleed- 
ing follows  while  the  animal  is,  of  course, 
unconscious.  But  wherever  the  Jewish 
method  of  slaughter  is  used,  as  it  is  wher- 
ever cattle  are  killed  for  the  Hebrew  trade, 
the  animal  is  destroyed  while  in  full  con- 
sciousness and  without  previous  stunning, 
by  the  use  of  the  knife  which  is  drawn 
deeply  across  the  throat.  Death  ensues 
at  last  from  loss  of  blood.  This  practice 


THINGS   TO   THINK   ABOUT      57 

involves  much  cruelty  even  before  the 
knife  is  used.1 

The  animal's  feet  are  first  made  fast  by 
chains  or  ropes,  then  it  is  thrown  heavily 
to  the  floor  by  jerking  its  feet  out  from 
under  it,  then  the  head  is  pried  back  until 
the  upper  part  of  the  face  is  flat  upon  the 
floor,  and  then  the  knife  opens  wide  the 
throat. 

With  the  smaller  animals,  calves,  sheep, 
and  swine,  the  custom  is  almost  universal 
among  American  butchers  to  kill  with  the 
knife  without  any  attempt  to  render  the 
animal  first  insensible  to  pain.  So  far 
as  I  can  learn,  in  some  instances  calves 
are  stunned  before  they  are  bled,  but  the 
common  practice  in  small  slaughter-houses 
with  calves  and  sheep  and  swine  is  to  haul 
them  up  by  a  hind  leg,  or  with  calves  and 
sheep  to  hang  their  legs,  tied  together, 
over  a  hook  and  then  to  cut  their  throats. 

In  our  great  packing  houses  calves  and 
sheep  and  swine,  herded  in  their  several 
pens,  are  one  by  one  jerked  up  by  a  chain 
fastened  about  a  hind  ankle,  carried,  thus 
suspended,  by  an  overhead  device,  one 
after  the  other,  down  the  line  to  where  the 
butcher  stands.  As  rapidly  as  he  can 
thrust  his  knife  into  the  throat  he  does 

1  "Humane  Slaughtering,"  a  translation  by  C.  Cash, 
B.A.,  p.  10. 

"Public  Abattoirs  and  Cattle  Markets,"  Oscar  Schwarz, 
M.D.,  pp.  134  and  143. 


58  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

his  part  of  the  work;  on  they  swing  down 
the  line,  the  blood  pouring  over  face  and 
eyes  in  blinding  flood  while  they  slowly 
bleed  to  death,  struggling  more  or  less 
violently  with  their  waning  strength. 

The  explanation  of  the  public  indiffer- 
ence to  this  subject  is  doubtless  to  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  slaughter-house 
and  all  it  stands  for  is  something  far  re- 
moved from  our  daily  life.  We  never  see 
it.  It^is  seldom  called  to  our  attention. 
Few  ever  think  of  visiting  it.  Here  and 
there  will  be  found  a  man  who,  as  a  boy, 
followed  his  curiosity  far  enough  to  see 
some  animal  butchered,  but  the  chances 
are  that  for  years  he  has  never  given  the 
matter  a  moment's  thought.  He  sees 
the  meat  on  his  table,  but  there  rises  in 
his  mind  no  picture  of  the  shambles  where 
the  floors  run  red  with  blood;  where  men 
pursue  their  tasks  with  hands  and  cloth- 
ing crimson-dyed;  where  cattle,  sheep,  and 
swine  struggle  in  the  agony  of  death.  The 
choice  steak  brings  no  vision  of  gaping 
throat  and  pleading  eyes;  the  tender  chop 
no  suggestion  of  a  lamb  hanging  by  the 
leg  and  mutely  bleeding  to  death. 

The  sights  and  smells,  the  filth  that  is  a 
part  of  the  slaughtering  pen,  are  as  un- 
thought-of  things  as  though  they  per- 
tained to  the  life  of  men  in  the  jungles  of 
Africa.  And  as  for  women  who  may  be 
counted  upon  to  champion  almost  every 


THINGS  TO  THINK  ABOUT   59 

righteous  cause,  here  is  a  realm  of  cruelty 
they  simply  cannot  enter  to  see  with  their 
own  eyes.  Few  of  them  could  endure  the 
sight.  Many  a  strong  man  who  has  forced 
himself  to  stand  for  a  single  hour  amid 
such  scenes,  has  gone  away  faint  and  sick 
at  heart,  resolved  never  to  repeat  the  sad 
experience. 

The  supreme  goal  we  ought  to  set  before 
ourselves  as  organizations  seeking  to  pre- 
vent cruelty  is:  The  requirement  by  law 
that  every  animal  killed  for  food  shall  be 
first  rendered  unconscious  by  some  method 
of  stunning  before  the  knife  is  thrust  into  its 
throat. 

After  the  last  word  is  said  about  the 
ranchman  and  the  railroad,  about  the 
callous  drover,  the  butcher  whose  hands 
must  drip  with  blood,  the  packer  who 
grows  rich  out  of  his  traffic,  —  we  come 
face  to  face  with  ourselves.  But  for  us 
there  would  be  no  demand  and  no  supply. 
Upon  us,  then,  no  less  positively  and 
heavily  rests  the  moral  obligation  to  do  the 
utmost  that  is  within  our  power  to  see  that 
these  victims  of  our  appetite  and  desire 
are  slain  in  what  shall  be  to  them  as  pain- 
less and  merciful  a  death  as  the  noblest 
humanity  can  devise.1 

1  See  booklets  and  papers  by  the  author,  entitled 
"What  Some  People  Eat,"  "The  Testimony  of  the 
Camera,"  "An  Indictment  of  the  American  Slaughter- 
house," and  "Interstate  Traffic  in  Calves." 


60  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

VIVISECTION 

We  do  not  forget  that  it  has  been  defended  by  men  of  the 
highest  character  —  by  a  Playfair,  by  a  Pasteur.  .  .  .  But 
has  not  anti-vivisection  a  case,  and  a  tremendous  one  f 

BBIEBLY 

WlTH  reference  to  this  important 
question,  the  scientific  experimentation 
upon  animals  in  the  interests  of  medicine 
and  surgery,  this  at  least  may  be  said, 
that  our  humane  societies  are  sustained 
by  people  maintaining  toward  this  serious 
subject  various  attitudes.  There  are  those 
whose  faith  in  their  family  physician  and 
in  personal  friends  who  are  physicians, 
leads  them  to  say:  "This  matter  I  am 
content  to  leave  in  the  hands  of  the  phy- 
sicians themselves.  I  am  willing  to  trust 
their  judgment,  confident  that  they  are 
faithfully  seeking  the  good  of  their  fellows, 
that  they  are  humane  and  worthy  of  my 
confidence." 

Others  say:  "This  entire  field  of  in- 
vestigation should  be  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  state.  None  but  the  most 
competent  and  expert  should  be  entrusted 
with  this  right  to  inflict  suffering  upon, 
or  to  take  the  life  of,  any  defenseless 
animal,  and  at  all  times  the  buildings  or 
laboratories  where  vivisection  is  practised 
should  be  open  to  the  inspection  of  state 
officials  thoroughly  qualified  to  judge 


THINGS  TO  THINK  ABOUT   61 

whether  the  laws  with  reference  to  cruelty 
are  being  violated  or  not." 

Still  others  there  are,  deeply  interested 
in  our  cause,  who  are  quite  at  sea  amid  the 
conflicting  testimony  that  they  are  forced 
to  consider.  On  the  one  hand  reputable  men 
affirm,  and  claim  to  prove,  the  inestima- 
ble advantages  that  have  been  derived  for 
man  from  these  experiments;  on  the  other 
are  the  assertions  of  many,  also  high- 
minded,  sincere  people,  who  deny  that 
any  good  ever  resulted  from  the  subjection 
of  an  animal  to  the  experiences  of  the 
laboratory. 

In  addition  there  is  a  large  body  of 
people,  organized  into  active  and  aggres- 
sive anti-vivisection  societies,  who  are  the 
determined  antagonists  of  the  practice  in 
all  its  forms,  denying  insistently  that 
any  gain  for  man  has  ever  been  derived 
from  vivisection. 

With  these  there  are  others  still  who, 
whether  they  deny  or  not  that  good  has 
come  from  animal  experimentation,  be- 
lieve we  have  no  moral  right  to  inflict 
pain  upon  any  sentient  creature  for  any 
purpose  or  end  that  is  for  man's  advantage 
and  not  the  animal's.  Independently  of 
the  moral  question  involved,  there  are  also 
those  opposed  to  vivisection  on  the  ground 
that,  so  abhorrent  to  them  is  suffering 
imposed  upon  the  weaker  by  the  stronger, 
that  for  no  gain  to  themselves  would  they 


62  THE   HUMANE    IDEA 

have  an  animal  subjected  to  an  experiment 
that  caused  it  pain. 

Besides  these  there  are  not  a  few,  ad- 
mitted in  other  things  to  be  humane,  and 
who  contribute  to  societies  for  the  preven- 
tion of  cruelty  to  animals,  who  are  per- 
suaded that  the  human  race  has  derived 
a  very  positive  good  from  investigations 
of  this  character,  and  are  perfectly  sincere 
in  defending  the  practice  within  what  they 
would  call  reasonable  limits. 

Our  regular  societies  for  the  prevention 
of  cruelty  to  animals,  as  a  rule,  have  not 
entered  the  controversy,  leaving  agitation 
and  discussion  of  this  subject  largely  to 
organizations  making  this  their  special 
mission. 

The  Directors  of  the  Massachusetts 
Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to 
Animals,  though  representing  various  con- 
victions with  regard  to  this  important 
question,  have  felt  themselves  warranted, 
in  speaking  for  the  organization,  to  take 
the  position  that  all  such  experimentation 
upon  animal  life  should  be  performed  only 
by  thoroughly  trustworthy  experts,  and 
that  all  places  where  such  experiments 
are  carried  on  should  be  open  to  inspection 
by  such  state  officials  as  are  competent  to 
judge  whether  the  anti-cruelty  laws  are 
or  are  not  being  violated. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  medi- 
cal profession  must  make  good  its  claim, 


THINGS  TO  THINK  ABOUT   63 

beyond  controversy,  to  have  attained 
by  vivisection  unmistakable  benefits  for 
mankind,  or  in  the  end  the  public  con- 
science will  demand  its  abolition.  We 
believe  we  may  go  farther  and  say  that 
unless  this  claim  can  be  sustained,  the 
great  body  of  physicians  themselves  would 
be  among  the  first  to  join  in  the  demand.1 

THE  ETHICAL  SIDE 

When  at  last  in  the  ever-branching  series  the  complete 
human  being  is  produced,  it  knows  at  once  its  kinship  with  all 
the  other  forms. 

EDWARD  CARPENTEB 

WASHINGTON  GLADDEN  re- 
marked, years  ago,  in  an  address  to  which 
I  listened,  that  this  whole  question  of 
man's  relation  to  the  animal  world  had,  so 
far  as  he  could  learn,  been  left  untouched 
by  our  writers  on  ethics.  He  declared  he 
had  searched  in  vain  through  all  the  books 

1  The  following  quotation  from  an  address  made  in 
Boston,  March  14,  1912,  by  President  Lowell  to  the  Har- 
vard Club  is  significant.  Speaking  of  a  distinguished 
physician,  he  says:  "Yet  I  think  I  am  not  mistaken  in 
saying  that  half  of  you  do  not  know  that  his  name  is 
Theobald  Smith.  Now  I  refer  to  him  because,  before  he 
left  (for  Europe),  he  told  me  that  he  believed  more  was 
to  be  learned  today  by  studying  the  natural  diseases 
of  animals  than  human  diseases  artificially  induced  in 
them." 


64  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

on  ethics  in  his  library  for  any  recognition 
of  the  rights  of  the  lower  orders  of  life. 

This,  if  we  remember  correctly,  was 
before  the  publication  of  "Practical 
Ethics"  by  President  William  DeWitt 
Hyde,  of  Bowdoin  College,  in  which  our 
duty  to  animals,  the  virtue  and  reward 
of  kindness  to  them,  and  the  vice  of  un- 
kindness  with  its  inevitable  penalty  are 
outlined.  "Kindness,"  he  says,  "recog- 
nizes this  bond  of  the  kind,  or  kinship, 
as  far  as  it  extends.  Kindness  to  animals 
does  not  go  so  far  as  kindness  to  our 
fellow-men;  because  the  kinship  between 
animals  and  man  does  not  extend  as  far 
as  kinship  between  man  and  man.  So 
far  as  it  does  extend,  however,  kindness 
to  animals  treats  them  as  we  should  wish 
to  be  treated  by  a  person  who  had  us  in  his 
power.  Kindness  will  inflict  no  needless 
suffering  upon  an  animal;  make  no  un- 
reasonable requirement  of  it;  expose  it  to 
no  needless  privation." 

Frederic  Harrison,  in  an  address  en- 
titled "The  Duties  of  Man  to  the  Lower 
Animals,"  also  says: 

"I  regard  man's  morality  towards  the 
Lower  Animals  to  be  a  vital,  and  indeed 
fundamental  part  of  his  morality  towards 
his  fellow-men.  I  refuse  to  treat  it  as 
an  extra,  an  appendix,  or  finishing  touch 
superadded  to  our  ethical  creed.  I  do  so, 
because  I  do  not  know  what  Ethics  can 


THINGS   TO   THINK   ABOUT      65 

mean,  if  it  be  not  the  due  ordering  of  our 
own  complex  nature  (a  large  and  indis- 
pensable part  of  which  is  animal)  towards 
the  vast  organic  world  in  which  we  find 
ourselves."  1 

In  the  same  volume  G.  W.  Foote  quotes 
the  following  from  Schopenhauer: 

"The  unpardonable  forgetfulness  in 
which  the  lower  animals  have  hitherto 
been  left  by  the  moralists  of  Europe 
is  well-known.  It  is  pretended  that  the 
beasts  have  no  rights.  They  persuade 
themselves  that  our  conduct  in  regard  to 
them  has  nothing  to  do  with  morals,  or 
(to  speak  the  language  of  their  morality) 
that  we  have  no  duties  towards  animals; 
a  doctrine  revolting,  gross,  and  barbarous, 
peculiar  to  the  west,  and  having  its  root 
in  Judaism."  2 

Modern  ethical  science  for  the  future 
must  surely  give  larger  consideration  to 
this  long-neglected  field  of  thought.  The 
bond  of  kinship  between  man  and  the 
other  animals  is  too  close  and  vital  to 
draw  a  hard  and  fast  line  and  say, 
Here  the  moral  begins  and  the  unmoral 
ends. 

"Evolution,"  writes  so  sane,  scientific, 

1  "The  New  Charter,"  published  by  the  Humanitarian 
League,  London. 

2  "The  New  Charter,"  published  by  the  Humanitarian 
League,  London. 


66  THE   HUMANE   IDEA 

and  scholarly  an  author  as  Brierly,  "has 
lowered  our  pride  of  exclusiveness.  Our 
boasted  reason  is  not  a  monopoly.  Ants 
are  reasoners.  Bees  invented  the  hive. 
The  new-discovered  closer  relation  is  forc- 
ing itself  into  our  theology.  It  troubles 
it  at  all  points.  It  is  so  difficult  to  define 
where  animal  ceases  and  man  begins,  why 
wonder  at  the  difficulty  of  showing  where 
man  ends  and  God  begins?  In  the  ques- 
tion of  sin,  too,  no  theologian  of  the  future 
will  be  able  to  discuss  the  problem  without 
study  of  the  animal  consciousness  and  the 
unseen  something,  the  sense  and  volition 
which  guide  an  animal  in  life  and  depart 
from  it  at  death  —  what  relation  has  that 
to  the  unseen  something  in  us  which  in 
like  manner  directs  our  life  and  shares  this 
fate  of  death?"1 

Men  like  Romanes  shared  in  thoughts 
like  these.  That  there  is  something  in 
the  creatures  below  us  that  death  does  not 
end  has  been  the  conviction  of  not  a  few  of 
the  world's  great  and  good  and  wise. 
Such  names  as  Luther,  Wesley,  Cowper, 
Southey,  Shelley,  Keble,  Kingsley,  Dean 
Stanley,  and  Agassiz  occur  to  one  as 
among  this  number;  even  Plato  is  in- 
cluded in  them,  and  Bishop  Butler  says: 
"Death  removes  them  from  our  view.  It 
destroys  the  sensible  proof  which  we  had 

1  "Life  and  the  Ideal,"  J.  Brierly,  p.  237. 


THINGS  TO  THINK  ABOUT   67 

of  their  being  possessed  with  living  powers, 
but  does  not  appear  to  afford  the  least 
reason  to  believe  that  they  are  then  or 
by  that  event  deprived  of  them."  1  To 
Darwin  it  was  an  "intolerable  thought" 
that  these  creatures  with  all  their  capacity 
for  devotion,  affection,  loyalty,  and  suffer- 
ing should  suffer  total  annihilation  at 
death. 

There  are  multitudes,  as  knowledge  of 
life's  mysteries  slowly  widens,  to  whom 
this  thought  is  also  "intolerable."  It  is 
incredible  to  many  who  have  been  the  re- 
cipients, for  example,  of  some  dog's  un- 
failing affection,  that  anything  so  akin  to 
the  love  that  is  at  the  heart  of  the  uni- 
verse, can  be  blotted  out.  It  is  a  part  of 
the  things  that  are  best,  and  that  ought 
to  persist. 

The  man  or  woman  who  has  never  asso- 
ciated intimately  with  these  lowly  friends 
will  not  understand  it  —  cannot  under- 
stand it.  Dogs  and  horses  no  more  than 
children  open  their  hearts  to  those  who  do 
not  love  them. 

Think  of  what  the  following  incident 
means  to  one  who  has  studied  and  loved 
these  orders  of  life  below  us.  Edgar 
Quinet  says  that  on  one  occasion,  when 
visiting  the  lions'  cage  in  the  Jardin  des 

1  "The  Analogy  of  Religion,'*  chap.  I,  "Of  a  Future 
Life." 


68  THE    HUMANE   IDEA 

Plantes,  he  observed  the  lion  gently  place 
his  large  paw  on  the  forehead  of  the  lioness, 
and  so  they  remained  grim  and  still  all  the 
time  he  was  there.  He  asked  Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire,  who  was  with  him,  what  it 
meant.  "Their  lion  cub,"  was  the  answer, 
"died  this  morning." 

Personally,  I  must  frankly  say,  in  face 
of  the  misery,  agony,  the  unrequited, 
patient  toil,  that  make  up  so  much  of  the 
lives  of  my  lowlier  fellow-creatures,  that 
unless  somehow,  somewhere,  I  believed 
there  was  for  these  my  humble  brethren 
in  the  universal  kinship  of  life,  an  evening 
of  the  scales  that  deal  with  the  great  reali- 
ties of  right  and  wrong,  my  moral  nature 
could  never  be  at  peace.  We  work  and 
hope  and  trust  in  the  faith  of  him  who  says: 

"That  nothing  walks  with  aimless  feet; 
That  not  one  life  shall  be  destroy'd 
Or  cast  as  rubbish  to  the  void, 
When  God  hath  made  the  pile  complete." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A  HE  first  list  of  books  and  authors  that 
follows  is  reproduced  from  Mr.  Henry  S. 
Salt's  "Animals'  Rights,"  Macmillan  & 
Co.,  1894.  He  says  he  has  not  "attempted 
to  give  a  complete  bibliography  of  the 
doctrine  of  Animals'  Rights,  but  merely  a 
list  of  the  chief  English  works,  touching 
directly  on  that  subject,  which  have  come 
within  his  own  notice." 

The  Fable  of  the  Bees.  —  By  Bernard  de 
Mandeville,  1723. 

Free  Thoughts  upon  the  Brute  Creation.  — 
By  John  Hildrop,  M.A.,  London,  1742. 

A  Dissertation  on  the  Duty  of  Mercy  and 
Sin  of  Cruelty  to  Brute  Animals.  —  By 
Humphrey  Primatt,  D.D.,  London,  1776. 

Disquisitions  on  Several  Subjects.  —  By 
Soame  Jenyns,  1782. 

Introduction  to  the  Principles  of  Morals 
and  Legislation.  —  By  Jeremy  Bentham, 
London,  1780  (printed  1780). 

The  Cry  of  Nature,  or  An  Appeal  to 
Mercy  and  Justice  on  behalf  of  the  Perse- 
cuted Animals.  —  By  John  Oswald,  1791. 

A  Vindication  of  the  Rights  of  Brutes.  — 
London,  1792.  (Attributed  to  Thomas 
Taylor,  the  Platonist.) 


70  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

A  Philosophical  Treatise  on  Horses,  and 
on  the  Moral  Duties  of  Man  towards  the 
Brute  Creation.  —  By  John  Lawrence. 
Two  Vols.,  London,  1796-1798. 

On  the  Conduct  of  Man  to  Inferior 
Animals.  —  By  George  Nicholson,  Man- 
chester, 1797. 

An  Essay  on  Humanity  to  Animals.  — 
By  Thomas  Young,  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge,  1798. 

Moral  Inquiries  on  the  Situation  of  Man 
and  Brutes.  —  By  Lewis  Gomportz,  Lon- 
don, 1824. 

Philozoia,  or  Moral  Reflections  on  the 
Actual  Condition  of  the  Animal  Kingdom, 
and  the  Means  of  Improving  the  Same.  — 
By  T.  Foster,  Brussels,  1839. 

The  Obligation  and  Extent  of  Humanity 
to  Brutes,  principally  considered  with  Ref- 
erence to  Domesticated  Animals.  —  By  W. 
Youatt,  London,  1839. 

A  Few  Notes  on  Cruelty  to  Animals.  — 
By  Ralph  Fletcher,  London,  1846. 

Some  Talk  about  Animals  and  their 
Masters.  —  By  Sir  Arthur  Helps,  London, 
1873. 

Man  and  Beast,  here  and  hereafter.  — 
By  the  Rev.  J.  G.  Wood,  London,  1874. 

The  Rights  of  an  Animal ,  a  New  Essay 
in  Ethics.  —  By  Edward  Byron  Nicholson, 
M.A.,  London,  1879. 

A  Plea  for  Mercy  to  Animals.  —  By  J. 
Macawley,  London,  1881. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  71 

The  Ethics  of  a  Diet,  a  Catena  of  Authori- 
ties Deprecatory  of  the  Habit  of  Flesh-eating. 
-By  Howard  Williams,  M.A.,  London 
and  Manchester,  1883. 

Our  Duty  to  Animals.  —  By  Philip 
Austin,  London,  1885.  Argues  against 
animals'  rights. 

The  Duties  and  the  Rights  of  Man.  — 
By  J.  B.  Austin,  1887. 

We  add,  besides  these,  the  following: 

History  of  European  Morals.  —  By 
William  E.  H.  Lecky,  M.A.,  1869.  Vol. 
I,  166,  note  244,  280,  288,  307.  Vol.  II, 
161,  162,  166,  168,  172. 

Humanitarianism:  Its  General  Prin- 
ciples and  Progress.  —  By  Henry  S.  Salt, 
London,  1893. 

Animals'  Rights,  considered  in  relation  to 
Social  Progress,  By  Henry  S.  Salt,  New 
York  and  London,  1894. 

The  Place  of  Animals  in  Human  Thought. 
—  By  Contessa  Martinengo  -  Cesaresco, 
Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1909. 

Life  and  the  Ideal.  —  By  J.  Brierly, 
London  and  Boston,  1910,  Chapter  on 
Our  Poor  Relations. 

The  Humane  Movement.  —  By  Roswell 
C.  McCrea,  New  York,  1910.  Prepared 
on  the  Henry  Bergh  Foundation,  Colum- 
bia University. 

The  Animals9   Cause.  —  London,   1909. 


72  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Manual  of  Moral  and  Humane  Education. 
—  By  Flora  Helm  Krause,  Chicago,  1910. 

The  Universal  Kinship.  —  By  J.  Howard 
Moore,  Chicago. 

The  New  Ethics.  —  By  J.  Howard  Moore, 
Chicago. 

Public  Abattoirs  and  Cattle  Markets.  — 
By  Oscar  Schwarz,  M.D.,  London,  1903. 

American  Meat.  —  By  Albert  Leffing- 
well,  M.D.,  New  York  and  London,  1910. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFOHm. 

RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

APR  2  2  1993 


KB  66175 


